Why isn't there a cycles on trains campaigns from Cycling UK?

[Cyril Haearn]

The North Wales Coast Line is double-track, but does it have signalling for short headways?
Only a few trains stop at Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan, and only on request

Unfortunately the parallel road is still being *improved* so flowers from Nederland can get to Sligo 5 minutes earlier

[Psamathe]

As an update to my most recent post relevant to this subject. Googling this subject revealed an article in rail magazine from 2015 - https://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation?p=2. I quote the following:

Any case for DOO could be undermined further by other industry trends, such as the growth in demand for assisted travel. In other words, even if the driver is able to command the safe operation of the train as far as able-bodied passengers are concerned, those requiring extra help - such as needing a ramp for a wheelchair - would require station staff to be present. A driver can hardly be expected to leave the cab to undertake such tasks.

in other words, if the companies get their way and we have driver only operation, the odds of trains carrying cyclists are..nil. This is a great argument to have common cause with trade unions. And also under driver only operation, how are disabled passenger expected to cope? Some of the latter could well be cyclists, of course......

I would have expected most cyclists would not be requiring help to board the train from rail staff. I would could disabled cyclists as needing help on the basis of their disability rather than them being cyclists.

I agree that rail companies must provide staff and facilities to help disabled people but I'm unconvinced that including cyclists under the same argument would help. To me it might even dilute the argument for staff to be available for disabled.

I'm not disagreeing with trade unions or provision of staff to assist, but rather I'm unconvinced that the attribute of being a cyclist/travelling with a bike requires staff to assist getting on/off the train.

Ian

[atoz]

As an update to my most recent post relevant to this subject. Googling this subject revealed an article in rail magazine from 2015 - https://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation?p=2. I quote the following:

Any case for DOO could be undermined further by other industry trends, such as the growth in demand for assisted travel. In other words, even if the driver is able to command the safe operation of the train as far as able-bodied passengers are concerned, those requiring extra help - such as needing a ramp for a wheelchair - would require station staff to be present. A driver can hardly be expected to leave the cab to undertake such tasks.

in other words, if the companies get their way and we have driver only operation, the odds of trains carrying cyclists are..nil. This is a great argument to have common cause with trade unions. And also under driver only operation, how are disabled passenger expected to cope? Some of the latter could well be cyclists, of course......

I would have expected most cyclists would not be requiring help to board the train from rail staff. I would could disabled cyclists as needing help on the basis of their disability rather than them being cyclists.

I agree that rail companies must provide staff and facilities to help disabled people but I'm unconvinced that including cyclists under the same argument would help. To me it might even dilute the argument for staff to be available for disabled.

I'm not disagreeing with trade unions or provision of staff to assist, but rather I'm unconvinced that the attribute of being a cyclist/travelling with a bike requires staff to assist getting on/off the train.

Ian

It's not so much help getting on or off the train. it's more that the regime that is encouraging DOO is unlikely to encourage cycles on trains, because of the DFT commercial rules imposed. Cyclists only were able to use trains in the era of BR because of low passenger loadings so less pressure on seats, also the existence of old style trains which still had guard space we could use. In addition, BR was a public service- private railways only operate on the bottom line. I am more likely to believe the rail magazine comment on this subject. I should also point out that not all cycle carrying facilities on trains are user friendly. The staff under DOO simply won't have time to bother with us, which will cause issues when you're busy trying to find the bike space on the train on a long platform and it's the other end of the train, in a rather short time. This can be difficult enough as it is, with a guard.

Saying in effect we don't have much in common with disabled users is counterproductive- after all, it has been kown for cyclists to also be disabled. For example, you may be a very fast racing cyclist who just happens to have a shoulder issue that makes it difficullt to lift a laden bike onto a vertical cycle carrrying space with a hook (you get those on Siemens multiple units on the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire). Disabilities are often hidden. And of course the non-disabled cyclist today can become the cyclist of tomorrow with an issue caused by increasing age or illness, or both.
The issue is discriminiation, and we shouldn't be afraid of confronting it.

There is a certain snootiness about pressure groups and campaigning in our world. I think it is misplaced. The question is- are we getting that we want? The answer is no. Look at other groups and issues and see if they have achieved their objectives. I think you will find they have been rather more effective. I don't consider it a victory just to have a couple of spaces for bikes, subject to the whims of the rail company. This is far less than we deserve.

[Psamathe]

It's not so much help getting on or off the train. it's more that the regime that is encouraging DOO is unlikely to encourage cycles on trains.....
Saying in effect we don't have much in common with disabled users is counterproductive- after all, it has been kown for cyclists to also be disabled. For example, you may be a very fast racing cyclist who just happens to have a shoulder issue that makes it difficullt to lift a laden bike onto a vertical cycle carrrying space with a hook (you get those on Siemens multiple units on the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire). The issue is discriminiation, and we shouldn't be afraid of confronting it.

I agree we need to ensure that disabled have the assistance they requirer. But saying some cyclists might be disabled does not create a case for cyclists. Some sailors might be disabled, some skiers might be disabled, etc. (and hopefully an ever broadening list of activities available to disabled).

Campaigning against e.g. Driver Only trains on the basis that "it's more that the regime that is encouraging DOO is unlikely to encourage cycles on trains" I feel is arguing against the "for profit" culture becomes more ideological. One might agree or disagree with the "for profit" culture for rail operators (I happen to disagree) but I see cycle facility provision as being at a very different level. One is unlikely to achieve much arguing that a DOO is creating a regime encouraging ... as it becomes more of an argument against the current ideological structure of rail operators - which is a far greater challenge that getting adequate facilities for the disabled or space for bikes.

I'd certainly hope that the train operator contracts already require adequate facilities and help for the disabled. If they don't then Ministers and Civil Servants should be losing their jobs for gross incompetence.

As for cycle space on trains a lot must depend on the train operator contracts. Certainly campaign that all subsequent bid for rail operators should include a requirement for set minimum levels of cycle provision (without caveats). The Invitation to Tender for the East Anglian routes from 2015 makes scant reference to bicycles and the only two references are in my opinion beyond pathetic

...specific examples of how the above requirements may be exceeded are set out below:
...
vi. Proposals to increase capacity for the carriage of cycles where a need can be demonstrated while meeting the passenger-carrying capacity and Crowding Limits

So it's an optional extra and always subject to easily biased constraints (I'm sure train operators could demonstrate no need if they set-up an inappropriate survey and they'd always have the "capacity and crowding limits" let-out and it's an optional extra anyway!).

Only other reference

i. Details of Initiatives which will deliver a high standard of customer service by reference to each of the elements (“Customer Service Elements”) listed below in order to meet the customer experience performance targets ...
...
(q) Satisfaction with the facilities for bicycle parking at the station

(which whilst important hardly helps people with bikes on trains).

So I'd campaign for future bids to require levels of provision.

Then also look at the existing train operator contracts. If they don't specify or require anything then it is a far greater challenge to achieve much as train operators are doing what they do for profit and even trying to embarrass them into better provision will be difficult. Don't expect much support or sympathy from existing foot passengers (commuters) already (apparently) over charged for crammed-in standing only space for what they regard as an inadequate service.

Ian

[atoz]

Yes, campaigning for cycle provision on trains can be ideological. That doesn't mean it won't work. If you're saying that not for profit can't happen, where does that leave any public transport? Many people in this country want to see railways and other public transport back in some form of public ownership. It is popular, especially amongst people who have to use it.

I am convinced that a modern targetted campaign could work. We need to get away from the traditional approach, which has more in common with the days of alpaca jackets and black tights at dawn. Those days are gone. Cycling UK need to "wake up and smell the coffee".

[Psamathe]

... you're saying that not for profit can't happen, where does that leave any public transport?.....

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm commenting on they way our rail services are currently run (I actually don't agree with the commercial "for private shareholder profit" operation of any public services).

The difficulty is that with regard to "now" we would have to campaign based on the present situation.

Where the aims of a campaign become mixed or confused then it becomes harder to achieve the sought outcome. So campaign for better cycle provision to achieve better cycle provision. Campaign for trains to be run as a public service and use inadequate cycle provision as one of many arguments (but there would be stronger arguments on the list e.g. failure to adequately provide for disabled travellers).

Campaign to bring rail services under government operation/control and those tasked with service provision will be directed by government who will want to see maximum use with minimum costs to it's not a foregone conclusion that cycle provision will improve; just that it will be under government control so lobbying might bring about change and that change would not have to wait many years for contracts to be tendered for again.

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

Went on a double-decker again
There is plenty of space for bikes but if the train is full people do not like giving up their tip-up seats

[thirdcrank]

While looking for info for another thread, I came across some evidence of effective campaigning over violence. To give a bit of historical background, common assault used to be an offence under ss42 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. Under s42 it was triable summarily (magistrates' court only) and only the complainant could lay the information ie the police could not prosecute the offence. Victims were advised how to take their own action. Campaigning, largely by women's organisations, eventually led to change and the 1861 act was amended by s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 so that common assault could be prosecuted in the same way as any other offence.

One result was that a lot of offences which amounted to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm began to be charged as common assault to ensure summary trial ie to prevent a defendant electing jury trial. (There's a more detailed explanation somewhere on here from shootist.) After more effective campaigning, here are a few points from the current CPS Guidelines.

Common assault should never be charged where the seriousness of the offence merits a charge of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)....

Common assault should never be charged solely as a means of keeping the offence in the Magistrates’ Court. ....

Where a charge of ABH has been preferred, the acceptance of a guilty plea to common assault will not be justified (except in exceptional circumstances)

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/o ... g-standard

Apart from being an excellent example IMO of an effective but prolonged campaign, the change of policing priorities entailed is part of the reason for the collapse of traffic policing.
========================================================
Here's shootist's post
viewtopic.php?p=629647#p629647

[landsurfer]

Cycling UK need to "wake up and smell the coffee".

Unfortunately at Cycling UK they seem to have a " wake up and smell the salaries" approach to life.

[reohn2]

Cycling UK need to "wake up and smell the coffee".

Unfortunately at Cycling UK they seem to have a " wake up and smell the salaries" approach to life.

+1.

[mercalia]

I wonder how much extra would it cost to pull a guards van for (bikes)? Maybe its just that guards vans are not made any more?

[Cyril Haearn]

Cycling UK need to "wake up and smell the coffee".

Unfortunately at Cycling UK they seem to have a " wake up and smell the salaries" approach to life.

+1.

Noel Coward wondered why he had a navel, the only use he could find for it was to keep salt in while eating celery in bed
That is where the phrase comes from, "wake up and smell the celery"

[Cyril Haearn]

I wonder how much extra would it cost to pull a guards van for (bikes)? Maybe its just that guards vans are not made any more?

Of course money is the thing, as many seats as possible have to be squuzed in

Back then the railways were "common carriers" and had to take almost any freight, remember private-owner coal wagons?

I think multi-purpose areas with no seats would be good, no seats, just rails to fix bikes to

I don't mind standing as long as I can see out of the windows, one sits all the time when cycling anyway

Multi-purpose areas would soon be known as "sardine coaches"

[millimole]

I wonder how much extra would it cost to pull a guards van for (bikes)? Maybe its just that guards vans are not made any more?

Guards vans were a product of a different type of railway.
Guards are now also ticket sellers & checkers. In addition to being responsible y for the safety of the train they sell tickets, check tickets, make announcements, open & close doors, and help passengers with difficulties board the train. The job varies with TOC, but it's a very responsible d job and pretty well paid - commensurate with the responsibly, hours, training and that they can be on the receiving end of violence. The point is that guards no longer have a van - they have to be mobile throughout the train.
A luggage van without a permanent occupant (the guard) would be a haven for all manner of anti-social behaviour - would you leave your bike there? It would have to be locked & unlocked at each stop, and there'd need to be monitoring of who & what goes in & out of the van.
From the TOCs perspective an empty van is space that could be occupied by seats - why would they? A better approach is the mainland European coach with wide doors, and tip-up seats, multifunctional and high capacity. Platform length is also becoming can issue - you can't add an extra wagon to a train on most routes.
The majority of trains these days have the motors under the coach DMU or EMU - so you can't slot in an unpowered wagon because the train 'won't work' unless it's a composite of identical powered units. Even loco hauled modern train sets (think TGV or older Eurostar) require matched units between the power cars. Why would a leasing company source an empty wagon (a guards van) that can only be used in that configuration?
I take it yours was a serious question?!?

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[toontra]

From the TOCs perspective an empty van is space that could be occupied by seats - why would they?

Then why not stick with the previous 125 model. No need for a whole "guard's" carriage, just a portion (4 metres or so would be sufficient) at the end of a regular one. Seems to have worked well for the past 40 or so years. The only possible explanation is maximising profit.

On the GWR line (as pointed out above) there are now only 2 bike spaces on newer, longer (with platforms lengthened to accommodate) trains. I make that roughly a 70% reduction in bike-carrying capacity. In my view that is shameful and make any claims by rail operators (or politicians) about "sustainability" or "integrated transport" truly laughable.

Which brings us back to the thread title. Why on earth didn't CUK (the name still grates!) see this coming and do all within their power to head it off?