Cycling UK Forum

Interesting

18th October - train 1 loaded to 24% seated capacity - 2.9 Tons of train per passenger
- train 2 loaded to 34% seated capacity - 2.0 Tons of train per passenger

The size of a brake van cage had wide variation - the old slammer trains on SWT had the space substantially reduced by putting an additional compartment in place of over half the space. I do know that a party going in on Coach A (HST) got 24 bikes into a relatively small space tightly packed, and we got over 40 bikes including tandems on a half-brake on the old St Andrews ride trains without starting a second layer. You need to get a picture or vehicle spec in many cases.

Scotrail Cycling Forum meet this week. Northern was on 6th.

Sheep will roll over cattle grids and anti trespass guards and I have known them use a small hump of ground as a 'ski-jump' to get over a wall and on to the railway line. Clever beast is the sheep - not quite as clever as the pig though....

A good indicator is that a sheep eating can be passed with inches to spare but if not eating has the potential to leap out in front of you - be wary also of lambs on one side of the road and ewes on the other. I was in hospital with a broken hip when another cyclist also arrived with a broken hip having hit a sheep which leapt out into the middle of a group of cyclists going downhill in the Lake District - clocking around 50mph.

Recent trips

06.50 Derby-Matlock (ex Nottingham) 7 pass 2 bikes

09.30 Matlock-Derby 12 pass 3 bikes to Ambergate/Belper then large numbers joined train (around 25 on 70 seat Class 153)

only 77 on subsequent Cross Country Voyager to Birmingham - which bears out recent discussion - XC trains on Birmingham - SW/NE corridor are full & standing on Sundays but poor loadings on weekdays - NXEC noted likewise that their Sunday trains are busiest. Now if only we had trains which could run filled with commuters on weekdays and then offer capacity at weekends by running on long distance routes - unfortunately the trend is to build task-specific trains which then are empty or idle or both whilst other services cry out for more task specific trains for their traffic.

Suggest you join in with posting on viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29583

There is a BS 4008 (2006)(was a lower number before this) for Cattle Grids which I used to design the first ones installed on a Sustrans route at Callander (Cill - ma - chug/Kilmahog) - they should really have flat top surfaces on cross-beams and no side ways to walk around the edge on (sheep don't need much of a ledge to get through) - length and width should be such that a sheep cannot roll across (long and narrow). Tubular section is not advised - but still widely used.

The abandoned village is called Syre - well worth a look-in to highlight the depopulation delivered by agricultural subsidies - predating the EU by a couple of centuries but still delivering a mutton mountain and skewing the local economies fo the Scottish Highlands.

Sometimes there are hazards which require a hazard warning - the CTC used to erect these around 50 years before the Ministry got around to thinking that a National Standard design might be a good idea. Warnings such as blind summit/corner, steep hill ahead - test your brakes, road (or path) narrows etc. There are also places where a ban on cycling may be in force and there are signs, with statutory powers associated with their use which state the position clearly. Once you use the appropriate sign to warn or instruct the cyclist then 966 is a waste of tin and paint.

Is the old route to the 'island' still OK or has it been made less usable by the new bridge? The new road route does cut up the old road. Canvey Island-Benfleet and Hayling Island are are presumably similar situations of limited route(s) in and restricting cycling by a direct ban or terrible road conditions. The connection to Canvey is the A120 or Ferry Road to Benfleet Station Hayling has just one road but a substantial link along the old railway line to Havant Station both have huge potential for cycling to the station

The single lane flyover at Chiswick has the alternative option of staying at ground level and using the normal light controlled junction - probably safer than squeezing with the cars on the flyover and emerging in the outside lane of the London-bound A4. That flyover like some others (A13) is a kit of parts and is also restricted to cars only, ramp gradients are severe, corners tight and joints often lumpy.

Ah you mean HGV's - LGV's are white van man. Another hazard on the road but a lot less likely to kill you (with the van that is)

Just picked this up - I wonder if this need to challenge a refusal was part of the selection process - were you successful?

The proposal is to allow the alternative wording of Rejoin Carriageway without the requirement of special permission. A door half open?

Third Crank you are a star!

and probably a sadder surfer than I am. That was a great resume of the proposals and there are other details as great as the Toad Crossing in the full documents.

I think if everyone has a good read of the consultation (Part A of downloads) to see what is currently in the DfT thinking, and highlight anything you spot in this back to Campaigns (Chris Peck/Roger Geffen) as they will be digging in to this when initiatives like SMIDSY Campaign get rolling. Perhaps a thread on ideas for responses to this consultation would be useful to pool this detail, in preparing individual and official responses.

Indications are that Sustrans is also trying to eliminate 966 and the proposed wording permitted now includes Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway.

There is a new sign for unsegregated contra-flow cycle traffic on a 1-way street and a new arrangement of ASL boxes which eliminates the dreadful feeder lane.

I wonder if there might be a reference to the width of a cycle lane in the regulations for the use of the white lines - need to re-read and see if a lane width is or could be specified with the lane marking regulation?

My own missing bits - to make a permanent use of the uneven road surface sign permissible for level crossings and other permanent uneven road surface conditions with a supplementary plate - "Rails In Road / Surface Irregularities - May Impair Control Of 2-Wheeled Vehicles" and a further use of the shriek sign or the 950 Cyclist Hazard sign - with a plate "Rails In Road - Cyclists Should Use Marked Route To Avoid Hazard"

The other is to deliver a proper sign and protocol for pedestrian priority so that a pedestrian making a movement as traffic on foot has priority over any wheeled vehicle movement, but would not be given free rein to stand still and obstruct the movement of any other traffic.

Buried in the current road signs consultation is a hint that an alternative wording of Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway, may be used and I gather from Sustrans contacts that they are also keen to see this sign (966) deleted or with greater restriction on its use.

As there is a current consultation on the revision of the signs manual I guess that responses calling for 966 to be scrapped or more tightly restricted in its use - perhaps as a secondary measure where a No Cycling rule applies, like Zebra Crossings.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/ope ... dmentregs/ lists the details and you can scroll down for the consultation document - Closing date (extended) is 24th December.

Whilst this is primarily a thread about 966, there may also be some othe signs whcih cold be more cyclist oriented - notably the possible approval of the uneven road surface sign as a permanent warning for places where the surface irregularities cannot be removed and present a potential hazard - level crossings and tram tracks.
Plus some possible supplementary plate wording for unrestricted use (rather than special permission)

You lucky Northern lot have got 3 train operators each getting £1m over 2 years to be Bike & Ride Train Operators - but .. wait for it ... the money is not for any on-train enhancement, it is for improving parking and access - Virgin is doing things along the Stoke-Manchester corridor with a link also to Stafford to pick-up student cycling for those well located universities (like Keele) and other activity. Northern has plans for Skipton as a gateway to the Dales - and I'd suggest working on Skipton-Colne as a very cycleable connection using the trackbed of the old rail link, which is being secured, until such time as the tracks get put back. They will also benefit from other major investment in Cycle Centres at Leeds, and Grimsby, Hull and Scunthorpe. Merseyrail is mainly going for cycle parking at every station (please don't do this like Scotrail and dump a toastrack even where no one will ever use them) instead we need to get some wheeling ramps installed and better access in many places.

There is also funding for spot schemes and this is still fluid - the DfT press release seems to have got some of the SWTrains information mixed up, and we suspect that there will be a few adjustments given the speed at which the scheme has been launched. Above all keep pressing the message with MP's and other contacts that we want to have proper engagement between the cycling community (users) and those charged to deliver the schemes, and the package has to be holistic and embrace all aspects of Bike & Ride - basic parking, premium parking, cycle hire, and cycle carriage (back on thread at last!).

Lets particularly work with the Virgin scheme as with a bike a Manchester to London trip will trounce the door-to door time taken if you fly - barely 20 minutes longer than the train time and a train every 20 minutes.

Where is that one as I ride round there a lot and I can't quite picture where it is?

You have missed the W out of Mowbray

Careful you missed an f from off in your post!