TOCs being anti bike?

[Harpers Tate]

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

Perhaps, but that's missing the point of seeing the London area as a special case. Somehow, I doubt the train to which you refer was as long as most of the platforms it stopped at, nor was the line upon which it operated running to capacity. Both these things are likely to be true in the London commute. I could cite similar cases hereabouts - but when the crammed train is a single 153 with an hour both before it and after it there is HUGE scope for a bigger train - with luggage and cycle space - and more frequent services as required.

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...

So they are done then. Which leaves....... (Just a reminder - 12 coach trains are just about exclusive to the South East).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Try Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham or Liverpool then....

 

[Lampshade]

Which leaves....... (Just a reminder - 12 coach trains are just about exclusive to the South East).

Several WCML stations needed their platforms extended to accommodate 11 car Pendolinos.

You're referring to places like Southport and Blackpool North, which could take 15-car excursion trains. Most stations up north can only take 6x23m (some, like Langho, can take even less) with anomolies like Pontefract Baghill which can take longer trains but almost certainly never will again.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I am familiar enough with those places. None of them need their platforms extending in order to double the size of many of the trains using them.

You're referring to places like Southport and Blackpool North...Most stations up north can only take 6x23m.

I wasn't in fact. My point is - the majority of trains outside London are much shorter than this and so having longer trains (with some of the extra length in use for luggage) won't involve the level of civil engineering as another member suggests. 6 coaches in many places would represent a tripling in length of most things that currently call there. My local station will take four - maybe six (I haven't measured it). Again - that would be a double or tripling of the usual size.

The point (again) is - we used to accomodate cycles and people and luggage. Nothing material has changed except policy to no longer do so.

 

[455driver]

The point (again) is - we used to accomodate cycles and people and luggage. Nothing material has changed except policy to no longer do so.

Nothing material has changed except the fact that patronage has gone by well over 100% on most of the network since the 1990s, you really do like to miss the "big picture" dont you! :roll:

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I am familiar enough with those places. None of them need their platforms extending in order to double the size of many of the trains using them....

The central stations don't, it's just those pesky stations on a direct line of route to them, you know, the ones people come in from. :roll:

....I wasn't in fact. My point is - the majority of trains outside London are much shorter than this and so having longer trains (with some of the extra length in use for luggage) won't involve the level of civil engineering as another member suggests. 6 coaches in many places would represent a tripling in length of most things that currently call there. My local station will take four - maybe six (I haven't measured it). Again - that would be a double or tripling of the usual size....

Most trains at peak time in and out of Manchester are full and standing four car trains. Most routes in and out of Manchester have atleast one station that can't cope with anything longer (without SDO). Liverpool is a similar story and I'd wager the same sort of story is true of Leeds and Birmingham.

....The point (again) is - we used to accomodate cycles and people and luggage. Nothing material has changed except policy to no longer do so.

More people commute now than in nineteen seventy whatever and over longer distances.

 

[Flamingo]

And as for 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.

One of the most infuriating things about this site is a certain type of poster who's response to any post by a member of staff pointing out the flaws in any arguement, is to accuse the member of staff of being "Anti-passenger". If you re-read my posts with your blinkers off, you will notice that my points are in favour of passenger safety and comfort, both of which are being endangered by selfish travellers.

But as a member of staff, who tries to mitigate these issues every day, I'm anti-passenger because I don't agree with your simplistic view. That's fine, what is the reason that non-staff posting on here disagree with you, then?

 

[GatwickDepress]

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.

I've seen someone jam their (full size) bike in the gangway of a crush hour 377 before. The Health and Safety Executive would've thrown a fit.

 

[island]

One of the most infuriating things about this site is a certain type of poster who's response to any post by a member of staff pointing out the flaws in any arguement, is to accuse the member of staff of being "Anti-passenger". If you re-read my posts with your blinkers off, you will notice that my points are in favour of passenger safety and comfort, both of which are being endangered by selfish travellers.

But as a member of staff, who tries to mitigate these issues every day, I'm anti-passenger because I don't agree with your simplistic view. That's fine, what is the reason that non-staff posting on here disagree with you, then?

Quoted for truthery.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Harpers Tate what the bloomin eck are you going on about about??? Numerous Platforms are a tight fit just for a double set (aka 1421 150, 156) I know of 1 that cannot even have a 2x142 formation on it (down Hathersage). My Toc Northern are a lot more lax in sticking to bike rules as we as guards use discretion and common sense. Today due to manchester Skyride I had on a double 150 set 20 bikes on (Bike Vestibules full and 2 at Each set of doors. Now I am sure in the "good old days" there was ample space! of course there wasn't even with guards van there wasnt much more space than a vestible. I really don't get how either Toc's are Anti bike or Rolling stock isn't good enough...how long is a piece of string exactly?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Nothing material has changed except the fact that patronage has gone by well over 100% on most of the network since the 1990s, you really do like to miss the "big picture" dont you! :roll:

And, outside of the South East - regional trains have shrunk. There is a bigger picture for you.

The central stations don't, it's just those pesky stations on a direct line of route to them, you know, the ones people come in from. :roll:
Most trains at peak time in and out of Manchester are full and standing four car trains. Most routes in and out of Manchester have atleast one station that can't cope with anything longer (without SDO). Liverpool is a similar story and I'd wager the same sort of story is true of Leeds and Birmingham.

I see. I seem to recall that civil engineering was going to be needed on "nearly every" station to accomodate longer trains. Given that most stations are substantially unchanged since they were built; that few are actually new, and that trains have shrunk in length since the early 1980s, forgive me but I'm struggling to equate that with the need for building work at "nearly every" provincial station, which is the comment I was trying to call into question.

One of the most infuriating things about this site is a certain type of poster who's response to any post by a member of staff pointing out the flaws in any arguement, is to accuse the member of staff of being "Anti-passenger". If you re-read my posts with your blinkers off, you will notice that my points are in favour of passenger safety and comfort, both of which are being endangered by selfish travellers.

But as a member of staff, who tries to mitigate these issues every day, I'm anti-passenger because I don't agree with your simplistic view. That's fine, what is the reason that non-staff posting on here disagree with you, then?

One of the most infuriating things about this site is a certain type of poster for whom the passenger is never right and is merely an inconvenience without which the whole thing would run more smoothly. If you re-read my posts with your blinkers off, you will notice that I am not blaming the staff, but rather trying to express that, when passengers "get in the way" (with whatever they may be bringing along) on an overcrowded train with insufficient luggage space, then it is YOUR employer and their puppetmasters who are together at fault for failing to provide enough room; a train fit for purpose; the same amount of space that was available in 1980 - and not your customers.

 

[AndyHudds]

As a mountain biker who doesn't have a car, I use the train regularly to get to places I'd like to ride, South Pennines and the Peak Distric. Trains are invaluable to us cyclists to get us to the countryside!!! I agree though on conveying my bike during peak hours, I tend to try and use them outside peak hours.

 

[EM2]

I would suspect the thinking went along the lines of:
How many cycles on average do we carry per train?
Do we need more cycle space than we have now?

As someone who has been commuting by train since the late '80s, I see many more cyclists at stations now than at any time previously. This is, in part, due to the increase of passenger numbers (almost doubled) and the wish for people to offset the increasing price of motoring.
The train companies have designed trains in line with the expected usage but have been caught out by the increase in numbers. It's all well and good for people to make an instant decision to abandon their cars, it's not as easy for public transport to immediately alter their stock and increase capacity.

 

[TheEdge]

As a mountain biker who doesn't have a car, I use the train regularly to get to places I'd like to ride, South Pennines and the Peak Distric. Trains are invaluable to us cyclists to get us to the countryside!!! I agree though on conveying my bike during peak hours, I tend to try and use them outside peak hours.

But do you accept that most TOCs carry bikes on a first come first serve basis and trains can only carry a limited number of bikes? The reaction of some cyclists when they are turned away (or the way some load bikes on an already full train) is so selfish as to be unbelievable. And then why does no-one every click if you alternate the orientation of the bikes they take up less space? Or take off the panniers?

As many have said cycling is a big part of commuting these days, that I accept. But why do cyclists (in my area at least) seem to be allergic to buying fold up bikes? Everyone seems to need not only a full size bike, but a full size road bike with those massive handle bars that double the width of the bike and reducing the bike capacity. Or they do buy a fold up bike, then take offence when they are asked to fold them up.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I see. I seem to recall that civil engineering was going to be needed on "nearly every" station to accomodate longer trains. Given that most stations are substantially unchanged since they were built; that few are actually new, and that trains have shrunk in length since the early 1980s, forgive me but I'm struggling to equate that with the need for building work at "nearly every" provincial station, which is the comment I was trying to call into question....

Like Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown you mean? Two of the oldest stations in the country which can't be much longer than 4x23m. Or perhaps the 'island' stations of Walkden, Swinton, Moorside, Atherton, Daisy Hill, and Ince which have vegitation growing out of the unused platform lengths, although I think 6x23 might be pushing it even for them. Kearsley, Farnworth, Moses Gate, Lostock, Westhoughton, Moston and Littleborough don't look too long either. I'm sure there are many more that could be named if it really came to it, Leyland possibly.

 

[455driver]

Lets not forget that back "in the day" long trains used to stop at short platforms with nothing to protect the passengers from falling except their own common sense, these days there would be blood and guts everywhere because there simple is no common sense anymore.

 

[Flamingo]

One of the most infuriating things about this site is a certain type of poster for whom the passenger is never right and is merely an inconvenience without which the whole thing would run more smoothly. If you re-read my posts with your blinkers off, you will notice that I am not blaming the staff, but rather trying to express that, when passengers "get in the way" (with whatever they may be bringing along) on an overcrowded train with insufficient luggage space, then it is YOUR employer and their puppetmasters who are together at fault for failing to provide enough room; a train fit for purpose; the same amount of space that was available in 1980 - and not your customers.

I AM on trains that are providing the same amount of space that they did in 1980! :roll: If you read my posts, I work Class 43's, otherwise known as 125's, or HST's which were all built in the 1970's.

 

[455driver]

I AM on trains that are providing the same amount of space that they did in 1980! :roll: If you read my posts, I work Class 43's, otherwise known as 125's, or HST's which were all built in the 1970's.

<Pedant mode on>

They are actually longer now as they have 8 coaches but when they were introduced they were only 7!

<pedant mode off>

 

[AlexS]

Another point is why would the railways be interested in accommodating people who should be looking more at a van rental than a rail service (ie large groups of cyclists). If there was money still to be made as a general carrier of assorted junk, then the railways would still be doing it. Road transport is much better at it.

15 kids in the school holidays wanting to travel together to a skate park for example with their irritating little bikes that they ride up and down the platforms, chucking them around etc. Although I did give a lot of kudos to one group who on being refused produced a bag of tools and reduced their bikes to a kit of parts within seconds that fit in their backpacks (and therefore didn't get in everyone else's way!!).

 

[Zoidberg]

Lets not forget that back "in the day" long trains used to stop at short platforms with nothing to protect the passengers from falling except their own common sense, these days there would be blood and guts everywhere because there simple is no common sense anymore.

Oh, I think that there is still common-sense. It's just that folk are not allowed to exercise it any more, well in the UK at least

For example, visit a castle in the UK and expect to see fences stopping folk getting near to edges. Visit a castle in France and see a sign saying something like "This is an old castle with crumbly bits and edges. Be careful."

Cue a whole new thread.

 

[Trog]

In my opinion bikes should be banned from trains without proper seperate accomodation for them. It is only a matter of time before some one is hurt by a bike falling on them, or by landing on a bike during an incident.

 

[cjp]

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?

As does Heathrow Connect.

Many of the commuter trains into Glasgow accomodate half a dozen cycles by using hooks and straps to hang bikes vertically. A sensible use of space as it also can be used for prams. But when it is full it is full.
The trains have a driver plus on board staff who can keep an eye on things.

 

[Antman]

In my opinion bikes should be banned from trains without proper seperate accomodation for them. It is only a matter of time before some one is hurt by a bike falling on them, or by landing on a bike during an incident.

Shall we ban buggies as well then?

 

[Firestarter]

Why not install Bike Racks on the front and rear of the train and maybe the roof as well?

 

[Zoidberg]

Why not install Bike Racks on the front and rear of the train and maybe the roof as well?

That raised a smile - particularly the "roof" bit.

 

[Trog]

Shall we ban buggies as well then?

Do they tend to fall over?

If they do fall over while they are lying on their sides, do things like handle bars and pedals stick up vertically?

 

[Andrewlong]

Shall we ban buggies as well then?

And wheelchairs?

 

[jon0844]

Why not install Bike Racks on the front and rear of the train and maybe the roof as well?

Well, I've seen buses in Las Vegas that store bikes outside (not the roof though!) but it might be somewhat more difficult to do on a train!

 

[Flamingo]

Shall we ban buggies as well then?

Buggies are supposed to be folded before boarding. Try telling that to some.

 

[theageofthetra]

I've seen plenty of buses abroad with huge bike racks front and back. In the winter they carry skis/Snowboards and they convert them to bike racks in the summer. I am convinced I have seen some on the outside of a mountain railway MU. Will have to look back at some old pics to check.