No trains for charity cyclists



C

Chris Brady

Guest
Despite the introduction of new rolling stock - Southern / South
Central / ex-Connex STILL have a number of the older slam door trains.
So why they couldn't they have used these is a moot point. I nearly
went on the L2B run on Sunday on the spur of the moment but am now
glad that I didn't. Indeed without rail transport back to London I
will NEVER go on it again. It seesm to me that once again a Railco has
decided on an anti-cyclist stance. Travelling by train in the UK is a
nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.

Intersting that Southern is so profitable that it can turn away custom
to the tune of £20 x 5,000 = £100,000

CJB.

===============================================================

No trains for charity cyclists

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3399873.stm

The event started in 1976 when 30 friends rode from Hyde Park
Cyclists taking part in the annual London to Brighton bike ride will
not be able to get the train home this year.

A lack of room on new high-tech rolling stock means this year, for the
first time, participants will not be able to return to London by
train.

About 27,000 people take part in the charity ride each year, with many
of them traditionally returning to the capital by train.

Last year South Central Trains ran 30 special services, with seats
removed from old carriages, but it has said it cannot do the same this
year.

They have known for some time that this would eventually happen -
there is no ill feeling

The event, due to take place on 20 June, runs over a 56-mile route
from Clapham Common to Madeira Drive on Brighton seafront.

Since 1980 it has been organised by the British Heart Foundation (BHF)
and last year's event raised almost £2.5m.

In 2003 about 5,000 cyclists took advantage of the special trains run
by South Central.

But the train firm is in the process of introducing £856m worth of new
rolling stock and is scrapping its old trains.

A spokesman said the new trains have room for only two or three bikes
per carriage and cannot have the seats removed to make room for more.

He said South Central had informed the BHF of the situation in 2002,
to give it enough time to make alternative arrangements.


The new trains have no guards' carriage where bikes can be stored

The spokesman said: "In the past we were able to work with the British
Heart Foundation to provide services, but unfortunately we are no
longer in a position to do it.

"They have known for some time that this would eventually happen -
there is no ill feeling."

Julie Sorrell, head of events for the BHF, said: "We were provided
with plenty of advance notice from South Central Trains and have made
alternative travel arrangements - which will include a coach and lorry
service."

But the CTC, the UK's national cyclists' organisation, has been more
critical of the situation, claiming the change reflects the railway
industry's attitude towards cyclists.

Director Kevin Mayne said rail operators were tailoring their services
to the needs of commuters when trains were also used by many other
groups of people.

He said the reduction in space which meant less room for bikes also
affected wheelchair users and parents with children in pushchairs.
 
In news:[email protected],
Chris Brady <[email protected]> typed:
> Travelling by train in the UK is a
> nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.


ITYM travelling by train in the UK can be inconvenient, and with a bike it
may often be inconvenient.

A
 
NewsReader wrote:
>> Intersting that Southern is so profitable that it can turn away
>> custom to the tune of £20 x 5,000 = £100,000

>
> Of course, the question could also be asked (I really *am* agnostic
> on this topic) as to what the economic fare that should be for
> cyclists on trains, since simple logic suggests the footprint
> required for a passenger and accompanying bicycle is inevitably much
> greater than that of of a normal passenger ....


I would like to think most cyclists wouldn't mind paying a premium to be
able to take
their bike with them (that premium to be decided)

The issue here was that the rolling stock in place cannot cope with these
passengers,
even if you were to charge them £10 000 each.

This is different to previous years, where it could.
 
Dwb wrote:
> NewsReader wrote:
> >> Intersting that Southern is so profitable that it can turn away
> >> custom to the tune of £20 x 5,000 = £100,000

> >
> > Of course, the question could also be asked (I really *am* agnostic on
> > this topic) as to what the economic fare that should be for cyclists
> > on trains, since simple logic suggests the footprint required for a
> > passenger and accompanying bicycle is inevitably much greater than
> > that of of a normal passenger ....

> I would like to think most cyclists wouldn't mind paying a premium to be
> able to take their bike with them (that premium to be decided)
> The issue here was that the rolling stock in place cannot cope with
> these passengers, even if you were to charge them £10 000 each.
> This is different to previous years, where it could.




The problem seems to be that new rolling stock is not being designed
with anyone in mind but commuters. Anyone travelled ona Virgin Voyager
over christmas? Poor shop bloke on my train was ordered to close the
shop and take the trolley up and down the carriages, and managed to get
2 rows in when he was confronted by bags in the aisle. The reason, there
are no luggage spaces at the end of these carraiges and the above head
space is 9 inches high! Seems we not only have no integrated transport
prolicy, we have no policy in place to accommodate passengers!

Bryan



--
 
in message <[email protected]>, dwb
('[email protected]') wrote:

> NewsReader wrote:
>>> Intersting that Southern is so profitable that it can turn away
>>> custom to the tune of £20 x 5,000 = £100,000

>>
>> Of course, the question could also be asked (I really *am* agnostic
>> on this topic) as to what the economic fare that should be for
>> cyclists on trains, since simple logic suggests the footprint
>> required for a passenger and accompanying bicycle is inevitably much
>> greater than that of of a normal passenger ....

>
> I would like to think most cyclists wouldn't mind paying a premium to
> be able to take
> their bike with them (that premium to be decided)
>
> The issue here was that the rolling stock in place cannot cope with
> these passengers,
> even if you were to charge them £10 000 each.


The issue is that to get an old flatbed freight wagon, bolt bike racks
on it and couple it to the end of the train would cost all of, ooooooh,
maybe a couple of thousand nicker. But that would be an innovative
response to customer demand, and we can't have that.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.
 
"dwb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The issue here was that the rolling stock in place cannot cope with these
> passengers,
> even if you were to charge them £10 000 each.
>
> This is different to previous years, where it could.
>

There's a whole fleet of trains lying idle which would appear to be very
suitable for conveying a large number of bikes from Brighton to London. I
refer to the Class 325 postals. Unfortunately AIUI they can't couple to
Southern Class 375/377 or to Southern/Thameslink Class 319, so the bikes
would have had to go in separate trains. But it does seem ridiculous that so
much potential revenue was rejected for lack of what should have been a very
straightforward solution.
Peter
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> The issue is that to get an old flatbed freight wagon, bolt bike racks
> on it and couple it to the end of the train would cost all of, ooooooh,
> maybe a couple of thousand nicker. But that would be an innovative
> response to customer demand, and we can't have that.


"In Business" on R4 last week was all about the change in business
language, including how it's all changing from daring to do innovative
things to making sure you never do anything much at all. The change
from "passengers" to "customers" was singled out as removing the basic
imperative of getting people where they want to go from the operating
vernacular of transport companies. It was interesting, but all rather
sad...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
in message <[email protected]>, Ambrose Nankivell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> Chris Brady <[email protected]> typed:
>> Travelling by train in the UK is a
>> nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.

>
> ITYM travelling by train in the UK can be inconvenient, and with a
> bike it may often be inconvenient.


Nightmare. Such A Bloody Experience Never Again, to quote the
now-defunct Belgian airline's mission statement. The last three times I
had a business meeting in London I booked full price first class
returns on the West Coast Main Line. The sum of lateness of those three
return journeys was well over fifteen of your English hours (i.e. over
50% of the total advertised journey time), and the total time spent
standing (when I had a booked, paid for seat) was eight hours[1] or
getting on for a third of the total advertised journey time.

What did I receive in compensation for this appalling performance? Why,
vouchers redeemable against rail travel! Thanks and all that, but no
thanks. It's no way to run a railroad.

[1] On one journey, they'd hugely oversold second class tickets. So they
had seated second class passengers in first class, and the guard would
not ask these people to move or stand - so I stood all the way from
Carlisle to London. On another, the train broke down completely at
Milton Keynes and we were transferred to an already over-crowded
commuter train. On this occasion we were also five hours late - on a
five hour journey. On a third journey, on the return leg they'd
overbooked first class, so another gentleman had a reservation ticket
for the same seat as mine. Fortunately he was only travelling to Crewe.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> The issue is that to get an old flatbed freight wagon, bolt bike racks
> on it and couple it to the end of the train would cost all of, ooooooh,
> maybe a couple of thousand nicker. But that would be an innovative


And might, just might, be cleared for 60mph running, thus causing the
train to occupy additional paths. Seen the cost of those? And that's
before we point out ``couple? with that?'' given that multiple units
aren't equipped with any couplers that freight stock uses. And then
there's the matter of brakes, as if it's fitted stock you'd need to be
able to ensure the brakes worked correctly, and for unfitted stock you'd
need a safety case.

ian
 
Ian G Batten wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The issue is that to get an old flatbed freight wagon, bolt bike
>> racks on it and couple it to the end of the train would cost all of,
>> ooooooh, maybe a couple of thousand nicker. But that would be an
>> innovative

>
> And might, just might, be cleared for 60mph running, thus causing the
> train to occupy additional paths. Seen the cost of those? And that's
> before we point out ``couple? with that?'' given that multiple units
> aren't equipped with any couplers that freight stock uses. And then
> there's the matter of brakes, as if it's fitted stock you'd need to be
> able to ensure the brakes worked correctly, and for unfitted stock
> you'd need a safety case.


Put them on the roof ;-)

(the bicycles, not the people)
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Chris Brady <[email protected]> typed:
> > Travelling by train in the UK is a
> > nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.

>
> ITYM travelling by train in the UK can be inconvenient, and with a bike it
> may often be inconvenient.


ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient, and with a
bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."
--
"I'm constantly shocked at how low ARKites opinions are
of me. Probably shouldn't be, but I am." - Stacia in ARK
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:e06jq1-
> The issue is that to get an old flatbed freight wagon, bolt bike racks
> on it and couple it to the end of the train would cost all of, ooooooh,
> maybe a couple of thousand nicker. But that would be an innovative
> response to customer demand, and we can't have that.


But the Health and Sanity Executive would need to approve the bicycle
bolting system. It would probably take them a year or two.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/
 
"Peter Masson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There's a whole fleet of trains lying idle which would appear to be very
> suitable for conveying a large number of bikes from Brighton to London. I
> refer to the Class 325 postals. Unfortunately AIUI they can't couple to
> Southern Class 375/377 or to Southern/Thameslink Class 319, so the bikes
> would have had to go in separate trains. But it does seem ridiculous that

so
> much potential revenue was rejected for lack of what should have been a

very
> straightforward solution.


Although the 325s are privately-owned (by Royal Mail) and are, currently,
not serviceable. Nevertheless, if GBRf do come to be operating these units
later in the year, on behalf of Royal Mail, it might be the kind of
innovative business opportunity that they are keen on exploiting!
 
Mark South wrote:

> ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient,
> and with a bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."


For values of "always" not including any train journey I've made in the last
year.

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

> ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient, and with a
> bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."


Where "bike" != "folding bike, especially Brompton".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:30:26 GMT someone who may be Bryan
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The problem seems to be that new rolling stock is not being designed
>with anyone in mind but commuters.


Largely correct. However, that is the way government wants it and
that is the way government has specified new trains via their agents
the Department of Roads, Franchise Director and (shadow) "Strategic"
Rail Authority (in chronological order).

>there are no luggage spaces at the end of these carraiges


Not quite. There are some luggage spaces at the ends and there are
some in the middle. These will take large luggage and recently some
of the end ones were expanded by removing two seats to give a space
for very large items of luggage. There is also, unlike earlier
trains, space designed under the seats for smaller bags, but few
passengers realise this and Virgin are not good at pointing it out.

>and the above head space is 9 inches high!


It takes my rucksack and my various bags.


--
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 Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:20:31 +0200 someone who may be "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient, and with a
>bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."


That's funny. I see people with bikes on many of the train journeys
that I make. They seldom seem to be inconvenienced.


--
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.
 
In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> typed:
> Mark South wrote:
>
>> ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient,
>> and with a bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."

>
> For values of "always" not including any train journey I've made in
> the last year.


Or me, unless you count the time everyone started getting on the train when
I was trying to wheel my bike off round a narrow corner, so I had to carry
it along the carriage to get it to the door without a logjam in it. It was
mainly a failure of my assertiveness, but it was decidedly humiliating.

I've also misread a timetable to very annoying effect in the last year, with
the assumption it would be the same as 5 years ago, which it wasn't.

But apart from that, no major hassles.

A
 
On 21 Jun 2004 05:16:58 -0700, [email protected] (Chris
Brady) wrote:

>Despite the introduction of new rolling stock - Southern / South
>Central / ex-Connex STILL have a number of the older slam door trains.
>So why they couldn't they have used these is a moot point. I nearly
>went on the L2B run on Sunday on the spur of the moment but am now
>glad that I didn't. Indeed without rail transport back to London I
>will NEVER go on it again. It seesm to me that once again a Railco has
>decided on an anti-cyclist stance. Travelling by train in the UK is a
>nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.


A lightweight bike bag is a simple low tech solution. It involves
removing wheels, pedals and turning the handlebars 90 degrees. A bit
of a hassle, admittedly, but it works well enough on the French train
network.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:20:31 +0200, "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Chris Brady <[email protected]> typed:
>> > Travelling by train in the UK is a
>> > nightmare anyway - period - but with a bicycle its a total nightmare.

>>
>> ITYM travelling by train in the UK can be inconvenient, and with a bike it
>> may often be inconvenient.

>
>ITYM "Travelling by train in the UK is almost always inconvenient, and with a
>bike it is a dead certainty that it will be inconvenient."


I've had nothing but good experiences in the UK. Certainly better
than in France where a bike bag is a near necessity if you want to use
the TGV.

Recent journeys with a bike have included, Paddington to Totnes,
Paddington to Swansea, Paddington to Taunton, Lee to Waterloo East,
Lee to London Bridge, Lee to Charing Cross, Paddington to Penzance,
Waterloo to Witley, Waterloo to Havant return, London Bridge to
Headcorn, Waterloo to Paris Gare du Nord return, Lockerbie to Euston.
Never any hassle.