South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'... - Page 3

In news:8985d795.0407100042.27dfc1b3@posting.google.com,
Howard <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> typed:
> 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!

One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like on
the continent. I've seen ones in Germany which have the
entire lower floor empty to carry bikes on.

But of course that would require re-engineering the whole UK
railway system as the loading gauge isn't big enough to take
double-deck trains. Which is most annoying. Shame no-one
thought of this earlier.

Ambrose

In message
<qu9ve05e1rl4s0e7ncqap2abvvs91f47sr@4ax.com>, "Just zis
Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes
>And my bike goes in the vestibule where there are no
>passengers anyway
>:-)

Lucky you. The majority of trains I've caught over the last
several years had people standing in the vestibules -
sometimes to the extent of a dozen or more in each. One size
does not fit all!!
--
Roland Perry

On 9 Jul 2004 08:01:38 -0700 someone who may be
findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk (Howard) wrote this:-

>Full document here:
>3.1. South West Trains is currently reviewing the existing
> Cycle Policy during peak times, Monday to Friday. This
> is due to the increasing numbers of passengers using
> the train service during the peaks. South West Trains
> has seen an 11% increase in passenger numbers from
> 2002 to 2003.

Then they need to run longer trains. However, this is
expensive for many reasons and the piggy bank is empty.

>there is a conflict of interest between passenger seating
>and cycle carriage on many peak South West Trains'
>services.

Only because of the piss poor design of the new trains. Piss
poor design is not compulsory and it is possible to design
trains with suitable facilities.

>Cycle storage on trains during the peak periods is
>extremely limited with a conflict of interest for cyclists
>and passengers.

Ditto.

>4.2. Cyclists joining and alighting busy trains can at
> times have a significant impact on train service
> performance.

Only if getting the cycle on and off the train is made
ridiculously complicated. The old trains had properly sized
doors and it took little time to get a bike on or off.

> ii) Extend the time cycles are not permitted for carriage
> on South West Trains' services in the area stated
> above from start of service until 10.00 and between
> 16.30 and 19.30.

In essence all day as far as most cyclists are concerned.

>This includes all services within the area in either
>direction.

This is the bit which demonstrates conclusively that they
are anti-cyclist and not, as they claim, performing a
difficult juggling act.

> iv) Only passengers with season tickets longer than
> weeklies can apply for a cycle reservation.

So, someone's bike breaks down. Instead of riding it to and
from work, as they would do normally, they want to take it
to the doctor on the train, leave it while it is repaired
and then ride it as normal. They are stuffed. A fine example
of an anyi-cyclist organisation.

>viii) Cycles are permitted free of charge on all other
> South West Trains' services

A relative handful.

>7.1. We recognise this is a significant change to the
> existing cycle policy and are consulting over 100
> people/organisations before concluding our views and
> implementation. The consultation includes cyclist user
> groups, MPs, rail passenger user groups and councils.

If they were not anti-cyclist then they would have
consulted before designing the new trains. This
"consultation" is just a sham.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:34:52 GMT someone who may be Lozz
<nospam@nospam.spam> wrote this:-

>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.

If you are serious about such arguments then seats take up
valuable space that could be used for a greater number of
standing passengers. One of the reasons that "modern" trains
convey fewer people in peak hours is the loss of standing
room in the guards vans.

Modern versions of guards vans can be seen in some
trains. They are useful places for children to play and
should be expanded.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:21:01 +0100 someone who may be "dwb"
<parc_erom@crossdata.co.uk> wrote this:-

>>> 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.

A pram takes up even more space, as does a large case. Why
is it that only cycles that are being picked on and what
does this tell us?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@gmail.com> wrote this:-

>One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like on
>the continent. I've seen ones in Germany which have the
>entire lower floor empty to carry bikes on.
>
>But of course that would require re-engineering the whole
>UK railway system as the loading gauge isn't big enough to
>take double-deck trains.

Not quite. Some locations in those areas where such trains
were to run would need to be adapted. However, it is not as
big a task as some think and it was seriously discussed a
few years ago.

One of the problems with double-deck trains is that they are
slow to load and unload at busy stations, unless double-deck
platforms are provided.

I have added uk.railway back as I don't see why someone
removed it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:28:04 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote in message <A7pyVYBka77AFAgq@perry.co.uk>:

>The majority of trains I've caught over the last several
>years had people standing in the vestibules - sometimes to
>the extent of a dozen or more in each. One size does not
>fit all!!

Ah, so SWT's anti-bike policy is actually a way of allowing
them to continue to run undersized trains, to the detriment
of passenger safety and comfort. Now it all makes sense :-)

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

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k0fve0h4t97bm2m2q5eo6bo9j27t3gadl7@4ax.com...
> >there is a conflict of interest between passenger seating
> >and cycle carriage on many peak South West Trains'
> >services.
>
> Only because of the piss poor design of the new trains.
> Piss poor design is not compulsory and it is possible to
> design trains with suitable facilities.

No, even at the design stage the conflict exists. Guard's
cage or 12 extra seats? No-brainer really, unless you have
to waste that space anyway (half-carriage crush zones, for
example - I assume the space wasted on Voyagers on the
bike/luggage area is prohibited for seating?

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@gmail.com> wrote in message
<2l9q17FaeasmU1@uni-berlin.de>:

>One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like on
>the continent. I've seen ones in Germany which have the
>entire lower floor empty to carry bikes on.

Would not work in many areas due to loading gauge
constraints.

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

In article <qeeve01j3kv31c1id66965b7hkj33a70u5@4ax.com>,
SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk says...
> A pram takes up even more space, as does a large case. Why
> is it that only cycles that are being picked on and what
> does this tell us?

It tells us that you need to put a childseat on the back of
your bike and stand your ground.

Jon

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dshve0p6a1ldrqdo5if31riv9strhni2ec@4ax.com...
> >One solution would be to have double-deck carriages
> >like on the
continent.
> >I've seen ones in Germany which have the entire lower
> >floor empty to
carry
> >bikes on.
> >
> >But of course that would require re-engineering the whole
> >UK railway
system
> >as the loading gauge isn't big enough to take double-deck
> >trains.

If the lower deck was unoccupied, you could perhaps get
away with 2/3 height and still have a decent passenger
compartment within the loading guage. However I wouldn't
like to address the security issues, or ticketless
travel, or....

It is quite an experience being on the lower deck of a train
doing 300kph with a very close up view of the ballast - now
a tilting version would be even more interesting!!!

Richard

In message <qeeve01j3kv31c1id66965b7hkj33a70u5@4ax.com>,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>A pram takes up even more space, as does a large case. Why
>is it that only cycles that are being picked on and what
>does this tell us?

Sadly, that cyclists using trains are often much less
considerate of their fellow passengers.
--
Roland Perry

In article <dshve0p6a1ldrqdo5if31riv9strhni2ec@4ax.com>,
SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk says...
> I have added uk.railway back as I don't see why someone
> removed it.

That would appear to have been me, although it wasn't
intentional.

Jon

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:05:04 GMT, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
wrote:

>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?

Later on in my post that's pretty much what I suggested. I
just am not convinced that there are that many people who
are willing to pay twice the ticket price for the bike and
again for themselves.

In news:s1jve0d4skaftmj9tnen3q5tfp2bcjtc1p@4ax.com,
Just zis Guy, you know? <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> typed:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@gmail.com> wrote in message
> <2l9q17FaeasmU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>
>> One solution would be to have double-deck carriages like
>> on the continent. I've seen ones in Germany which have
>> the entire lower floor empty to carry bikes on.
>
> Would not work in many areas due to loading gauge
> constraints.

Well snipped there, that man!

A