South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'... - Page 2

On 9 Jul 2004 08:01:38 -0700, Howard <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> From Carlton Reids excellent 'Bikebiz' site... (
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk ).
>
>
> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
> want you.

It's worse than the leaflet suggests. In the first place,
teh leaflet and the accompanying maps don't agree - one
describes a different set of restrictions to teh other.
Also, what the leaflet describes as current policy
actually isn't.

Furthermore, tehre are some really wacky things in there -
for example, on some lines it will only be possible to take
a bike if you have a bicycle reservation. Bicycle
reservations, hopwever, will only be available to people who
have season tickets of greater than a week
- so if you want to take a bike, you need a monthly season.
I don't know why they don't just implement an outright ban
and be done with
it.

The major change for teh worse, however, is that in the peak
hours currently you can take a bike in teh off-peak
direction. That is, if travelling away from London, you can
take a bike on a train at 08:30. thsi is perfectly sensible
- those trains are very quiet, mostly they're shuttling back
out only to head in again. The new restrictions, as well as
more-or-less doubling teh duration of teh restrictions,
applies the restrictions in both directions, so you can't
head away from London on a near-deserted train with a bike!

I have teh proposals in a combination of pdfs and a doc
file if anyone wants to email me. I'm not sure how you'd
make your commenst if you're not in a consulted
organisation, however.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Lozz" <nospam@nospam.spam> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b58da0e13bbf718989697@text.news.virgin.net...
>>> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
>>> want you.
>>
>> Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from peak
>> hour trains. Cyclists and their bikes take up valuable
>> space on trains that could be used for a greater number
>> of non-cycling passengers. This is economic reality. Non-
>> folding cycles also obstruct access to doorways and along
>> platforms at a time when there are large flows of
>> passengers.
>
>
> Thats only because the rail companies have designed it
> that way!

A bicycle takes up the room of at least two people.

You simply _cannot_ argue that.

This is interesting. I regularly see written-in complaints
in railway magazines and other forums about the carriage of
bikes with train operating companies, South West Trains in
particular. Compared to British Rail the privatised train
operating companies seem to be in the railway game for
profit rather than providing a helpful and convenient
service. A bicycle's space usage on a train may be the
equivalent of three passengers (perhaps), but the extra room
it is taking up is not making the train operating company
any more money, whereas three extra passengers are.

The evident flaw with new multiple unit design is the fact
that large baggage tends not to be taken into account, thus
only minimal space is provided for typical bags and the odd
case. When Network South East used to operate locomotive-
hauled trains out of Waterloo, bound for Exeter, there would
always be a designated part of the Mk1/Mk2 carriage (I
believe it was the 'brake' coach) for the storage of large
items such as suitcases and bicycles and this is even true
with the old slam door stock now going out of service. New
rolling stock design seems to ignore the storage aspect of
travel completely and the only remaining trains which seem
to be suitable for carriage of large baggage are the High
Speed train sets (Intercity 125/225) and the remaining
services with a Class 82 DVT at the rear.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:34:52 GMT, Lozz <nospam@nospam.spam> wrote:

>> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
>> want you.
>
>Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from peak
>hour trains. Cyclists and their bikes take up valuable
>space on trains that could be used for a greater number of
>non-cycling passengers. This is economic reality. Non-
>folding cycles also obstruct access to doorways and along
>platforms at a time when there are large flows of
>passengers.
>
>I'm not saying that railway companies should be doing
>nothing for cyclists. They should be adapting trains to
>carry more cycles off-peak with tip-up seats etc. and they
>should be making much more of an effort to improve cycle
>access to stations, as well as adding better facilities at
>stations (e.g. secure storage).
>
>Cyclists would be much better off campaigning for something
>that is realistic. I say this as someone who has some
>involevement with railway companies, cycling campaigns and
>local councils.

I'm with you on this.

Coming from a slightly different angle, consider the
situation if cycling ceases to be the mode for a tiny 3% of
journeys and becomes mainstream transport. It will simply
not be economic for a significant number of passengers to
take bikes for free.

To pursue the "right" to take a bike on a train without
paying is to accept continuation of a world where cycling
remains a transport irrelevance. Besides, demanding taxpayer
subsidised transport freebies makes you sound like the
motoring lobby howling at the erosion of their "right to
drive" whenever anyone attempts to recoup the costs of that
modal choice.

Even today, free passage of bikes on trains makes no
economic sense at peak times. A bike takes the space of two
people. Put together a business case showing that there are
enough cyclists willing to pay three times that of an
unaccompanied traveller and I'll sign up for the campaign
for bikes on trains.

While the economics stack up so badly, let's push for some
achievable benefits for cyclists:

1. Gold standard bike parking at stations.
2. Unambiguous welcoming of folders.
3. Easy to use booking system for trains where bikes
are carried.
4. Clear defn of "off peak" hours.
5. Gold standard, safe & fast, routes to stations.

Let's be innovative:

6. Can stations receive & hold bikes sent by Parcelforce
for those off on holiday? I've investigated sending
bikes (and luggage) to hotels before and it seemed
feasible enough.
7. Can busy stations offer lockers & changing facilities for
sporty cyclists?
8. At what level of use does the continental "bike station"
concept become economic?

These sort of things are both realistically achievable
(well, maybe not the innovative bit) and are scalable as
cycling increases. Bikes-on-all-trains-for-free is neither.

But what can us poor cylclists do now?

Use folders, first and foremost. There are now a huge number
of types available from the commuter's Brommie to the full
size Dahon road and MTB bikes.

For leisure, most of us *can* travel off peak and this is
where we should focus our efforts for improvements by the
TOCs. In the past, if you took a bike off peak you just
leaned it up in the vesibule. In some areas, I believe you
still can.

Or for regular commuting, have two full size bikes; one at
each station. A lot of people do this already. And
improved, more secure parking is an achievable goal that
will help this.

I realise that you might not all agree with me on this
one, though.

"dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk>typed

> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > "Lozz" <nospam@nospam.spam> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b58da0e13bbf718989697@text.news.virgin.net...
> >>> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
> >>> want you.
> >>
> >> Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from
> >> peak hour trains. Cyclists and their bikes take up
> >> valuable space on trains that could be used for a
> >> greater number of non-cycling passengers. This is
> >> economic reality. Non-folding cycles also obstruct
> >> access to doorways and along platforms at a time when
> >> there are large flows of passengers.
> >
> >
> > Thats only because the rail companies have designed it
> > that way!

> A bicycle takes up the room of at least two people.

> You simply _cannot_ argue that.

How many people, or bikes, could have occupied the catering
carriage that was not used for 3 of my four trips on the Waterloo-
Weymouth line last week?

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

On 9 Jul 2004 13:09:49 -0700, Glasspool <mjglasspool@cwcom.net> wrote:

> convenient service. A bicycle's space usage on a train
> may be the equivalent of three passengers (perhaps), but
> the extra room it is taking up is not making the train
> operating company any more money, whereas three extra
> passengers are.

They must be either mighty fat bikes, or mighty thin
passengers round your way.

However, if that's teh problem, why not say bikes won't be
carried if teh train is crowded? Why not restrict other
baggage? So far as I can tell, I am allowed to take a double
mattress with me onto a peak hours SWT train...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

in message <MPG.1b58da0e13bbf718989697@text.news.virgin.net>, Lozz
('nospam@nospam.spam') wrote:

>> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
>> want you.
>
> Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from peak
> hour trains. Cyclists and their bikes take up valuable
> space on trains that could be used for a greater number of
> non-cycling passengers. This is economic reality. Non-
> folding cycles also obstruct access to doorways and along
> platforms at a time when there are large flows of
> passengers.

This is an example of why the railways should never have
been privatised and desperately need to be renationalised.
They don't operate in an economic vacuum. The refusal to
take bikes on commuting trains may be economically
beneficial to the TOCs but it isn't beneficial to the
transport infrastructure - or the economy - as a whole.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to
rice.

[Not Responding] wrote:

> Coming from a slightly different angle, consider the
> situation if cycling ceases to be the mode for a tiny 3%
> of journeys and becomes mainstream transport. It will
> simply not be economic for a significant number of
> passengers to take bikes for free.

Why not? Gedankenexperiment: those 3% of journeys suddenly
becomes, say, 70%. The ££££ ploughed into subsidising motor
cars can be diverted onto the renationalised railways and
put into, eg, providing whole "luggage vans" for bicycles.
Not economic for privatised railways (and rolling stock
leasing companies, etc) whose object is to make a profit for
their shareholders, no, but economic for a state-run
multimodal transport system.

R.

in message <slute0plnsfck3ds6lr67qohnj8n2r0o0g@4ax.com>, [Not
Responding] ('notresponding@dev.null.invalid') wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:34:52 GMT, Lozz
> <nospam@nospam.spam> wrote:
>
>>> Cycle commuters be damned, South West Trains doesn't
>>> want you.
>>
>>Cyclist without folding bikes should be banned from peak
>>hour trains. Cyclists and their bikes take up valuable
>>space on trains that could be used for a greater number of
>>non-cycling passengers. This is economic reality.

[snip]

>>Cyclists would be much better off campaigning for
>>something that is realistic. I say this as someone who has
>>some involevement with railway companies, cycling
>>campaigns and local councils.
>
> I'm with you on this.
>
> Coming from a slightly different angle, consider the
> situation if cycling ceases to be the mode for a tiny 3%
> of journeys and becomes mainstream transport. It will
> simply not be economic for a significant number of
> passengers to take bikes for free.

So why not impose a realistic charge for the carriage of
a bicycle?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the
time.

Ian Smith ian@astounding.org.uk opined the following...
> So far as I can tell, I am allowed to take a double
> mattress with me onto a peak hours SWT train...

That sounds like a good publicity stunt if you could get
your local press to turn up with a photographer.

Jon

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:52:50 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote (more or less):

>On 09 Jul 2004 15:29:17 GMT, wafflycathcs@aol.comcomcom
>(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
>>>I really hate what's happening to our public transport
>>>infrastrucure.
>>
>>It has to be said...
>>
>>... What public transport infrastructure???
>>
>
>There's a pretty good one covering most of the UK
>population. Unfortunately, too many people have made
>themselves car dependant[1] without noticing the fact.
>
>[1] Either through life style choices such as living in the
> country and working/studying/shopping in town or
> through simply getting used to the luxuries of private
> space, CD players etc that cars offer and falsely
> believing that travel cannot be accomplished without
> these.

It's a curious fact but true - you don't need to travel by
car to use a CD-player while in transit.

>Not that I have anything against people spending their cash
>on luxuries such as travelling in private or rural
>dormitory living. I just get irked when these people then
>go on to say that travel without a car is crap or
>impossible.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:53:46 +0100, "Clive George"

<ccmer7$ujn$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>:

>> may i refer you to this? http://www.cyclingforums.com/sh-
>> owthread.php?s=&threadid=139046

>You may not realise this, but the cyclingforums site you
>refer to is just a way of getting to the newsgroup
>uk.rec.cycling. So you should say 'see thread entitled
>National Campaign - let's do it', so the majority of
>readers don't need to open a new browser window.

And there is always the fact that CTC and other cycling
organisations are already on the case...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:21:01 +0100, "dwb" <parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk>
wrote in message <2l89grF9hil3U1@uni-berlin.de>:

>A bicycle takes up the room of at least two people. You
>simply _cannot_ argue that.

I can. Look at the floor area per person in a train. It
goes from the back of the seat to the middle of the aisle
between the seats, and is the full width of the seat. And
my bike goes in the vestibule where there are no passengers
anyway :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

> They must be either mighty fat bikes, or mighty thin
> passengers round your way.

The figure was given as an example and something not to be
taken for gospel. However, put a bike on a Kent commuter
train and then see how much room it really takes up during
the rush hour. However, the operating companies and train
designers should be blamed for not having designated areas
for large luggage, such as brake coaches / large guard
compartments. A major flaw in new multiple unit design.

Hi folks,

Some interesting responses so far. However, it seems to me
the REAL issue that the although Britain's trains are
expensive, poorly maintained and infrequent, the number of
'customers' still exceeds the capacity of the companies to
carry them. I would have thought the real solution was to
increase the number of units running on the network!

Instead the rail companies seem to be choosing what 'type'
of customer they would prefer to carry, a sort of apartheid
of the tracks...

I see no companies banning the carriage of pushchairs or
suitcases on their services, so why attempt to exclude
cyclists...

Look at the rail services in places such as Italy, they seem
to have plenty of extra capacity. Then again, in such
countries the rail system is run as a public service, not
just a means of generating profits for shareholders...

Those who argue it is 'unrealistic' to expect trains to
carry cycles on economic/capacity grounds are simply playing
into the hands of those opposed to our rail services being
run as a public service. Will they take the same stance the
next time service cuts or fare rises are proposed on
'economic' ground I wonder...