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

[RickH]

Trains can often not easily be lengthened, often the platforms or the passing loops limit the length

At Colwyn Bay station there is a sign for drivers: "are you stopping at Abergele?"
Can anyone explain?
Diolch

2 possibilities.

1)Is Abergele a request stop? There are several but I can't remember which off the top of my head. I don't usually go beyond Chester so I'm aware of the announcements about request stops but don't pay much attention.

2)The platform is short. I know that they tell you to be in the front 2 carriages if you want to get off at Helsby. That can mean getting off & back on if the train is 2 2-car units joined as there is no on board link between the 2 halves.

Edited to add a 3rd possibility - Not all trains stop at Abergele & it reminds the driver whether they should be stopping that train, or not.

[mjr]

Trains can often not easily be lengthened, often the platforms or the passing loops limit the length

Most of the problems with short platforms are addressed by selective door opening. Not all but usually enough.

Passing loops are usually long enough to handle freight trains longer than most passenger trains, even still now, so I expect the remainder could be fixed or worked around if there was political will to deploy trains that long.

[jgurney]

The shift to mulitple units is nothing to do with technological developments.

At risk of going off topic, it had a lot to do with technology. Distributed traction requires effective remote control of multiple engines and requires several small engines or motors to be affordable compared with one large one. Before those requirements were met, locomotive haulage was the only practical and affordable option.

It is more convenient to run trains this way .... Also multiple units are lighter than the heavier type diesels

Quite - which is why now it is practical it is being done.

There is no real difference in safety between modern DMUs and modern coaches

Outside my field but I gather there a a slight advantage for MU's in that their weight and therefore track adhesion and braking effort is more evenly distributed: in a loco-hauled rake making an emergency stop, due to the loco weighing more than the train, there is a slightly higher risk of carriages skidding and failing to decelerate as fast as the loco, then concertinaing behind it. To link back to cycling, it is a bit like the hazards of braking sharply while towing an unladen trailer.

[pwa]

Having given up trying to use trains even without a bike, I feel that for me the bike question is second on my list. First is the more fundamental problem of paying for a ticket then having to stand because there are too many other folk wanting to use the same train. Our first priority has to be getting every passenger a seat. The last two times I have travelled to Cardiff from Bridgend (20 minutes or so) the train has been so rammed that the guard has been telling people not to try to board. Those trains were after 9am, so not exactly peak time. The first thing I want improved is seat availability, and we can work on bike carrying after that. Both matter, but the seat thing matters more.

[Littgull]

Having given up trying to use trains even without a bike, I feel that for me the bike question is second on my list. First is the more fundamental problem of paying for a ticket then having to stand because there are too many other folk wanting to use the same train. Our first priority has to be getting every passenger a seat. The last two times I have travelled to Cardiff from Bridgend (20 minutes or so) the train has been so rammed that the guard has been telling people not to try to board. Those trains were after 9am, so not exactly peak time. The first thing I want improved is seat availability, and we can work on bike carrying after that. Both matter, but the seat thing matters more.

Except that there are thousands of rail travellers who depend on being able to readily take their bikes by train as part of their essential commute to work. Therefore, equal priority to available seats for every passenger would quite rightly be their requirement.

[Littgull]

Additionally, if I was a daily work commuter using Transpennine Express to commute to work with my bike and suddenly found myself unable to take my bike on the train due to their new restrictive bike spaces policy, I would demand a part refund of my season ticket to fund a Brompton (that doesn't require a reservation).

[horizon]

Having given up trying to use trains even without a bike, I feel that for me the bike question is second on my list. First is the more fundamental problem of paying for a ticket then having to stand because there are too many other folk wanting to use the same train. Our first priority has to be getting every passenger a seat. The last two times I have travelled to Cardiff from Bridgend (20 minutes or so) the train has been so rammed that the guard has been telling people not to try to board. Those trains were after 9am, so not exactly peak time. The first thing I want improved is seat availability, and we can work on bike carrying after that. Both matter, but the seat thing matters more.

pwa: we've covered this on another thread. The question is: what will you do when you've removed all the bike spaces (that's four more seats) and there are still people standing? And the cyclists are still trying to get to work/home. I believe the term for it is thinking that is epistemologically wrong. It's very useful for the TOC to use this approach as they know passengers will relate to it. You can carry it further and apply it to any marginalised group: demonise them and then remove their rights (although not even solving the problem).

It's frightening stuff if you've been on the receiving end of it (as I have) and very, very dark:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=121202

[thirdcrank]

Re a Cuk policy, this thread has illustrated the range of different circumstances in which somebody might want to travel by train with their bike. Some of the proposed solutions have bordered on a complete re-equipping with new cycle-friendly trains and rebuilding the network eg bigger tunnels to accommodate them. Some of this would only be for the rider who decides to catch a train on the spur of the moment.

Commuters are at the other end of this spectrum and one effect of offering ideal travel conditions for thousands of cycling commuters would be to increase their numbers: it would be a victim of its own success.

Buying a folder has been suggested and that's probably the way to go. Unless an existing season ticket explicitly guarantees the carriage of a bike in the price, I doubt there's a right to compensation if they vary the policy on carrying bikes. I've not got a season ticket to check the T&C's but they are generally tightly drawn so that rights like this are not acquired.

[Littgull]

Re a Cuk policy, this thread has illustrated the range of different circumstances in which somebody might want to travel by train with their bike. Some of the proposed solutions have bordered on a complete re-equipping with new cycle-friendly trains and rebuilding the network eg bigger tunnels to accommodate them. Some of this would only be for the rider who decides to catch a train on the spur of the moment.

Commuters are at the other end of this spectrum and one effect of offering ideal travel conditions for thousands of cycling commuters would be to increase their numbers: it would be a victim of its own success.

Buying a folder has been suggested and that's probably the way to go. Unless an existing season ticket explicitly guarantees the carriage of a bike in the price, I doubt there's a right to compensation if they vary the policy on carrying bikes. I've not got a season ticket to check the T&C's but they are generally tightly drawn so that rights like this are not acquired.

Yes, I'm sure you are right TC and the TOCs would hide behind their terms and conditions. There must be quite a number of work commuters with bikes on TPE routes that are now either facing a difficult financial burden (E. G. buy Brompton) or try to find an alternative way of getting to work. It's an absolute disgrace. Not to mention, people who booked tickets for leisure trips on TPE routes prior to the policy change who now can't take their bikes due to the meagre two spaces not available with some routes now having Nil bike spaces on trains that previously had them!

[thirdcrank]

These changes don't just occur spontaneously. On the contrary, they are the response to perceived problems, in this case overcrowding. We've gone quite quickly from trying to encourage people to travel by train, when cyclists might have represented more BTM's on seats, to a critical lack of seating capacity, especially for commuters. I can see lots of reasons involving under-investment, political dogma and a society increasingly organised on the assumption that people will travel increasing distances to work. I don't see enabling the automatic right to turn up for a train with a bike as feasible.

[PH]

I don't see enabling the automatic right to turn up for a train with a bike as feasible.

I don't think it ever will be. There's plenty of other ways it would be feasible to combine cycling and train commuting, campaigning for the facilities to make this more practical would IMO be time and effort better spent. Bike>Train>Something else>>> is already feasible for a large number of people, just look at the bikes parked outside many stations. There have been improvements in secure storage and cycle hire, increasing this will have more effect than adding a few extra spaces per train.
For leisure cycling, things could be better, some consistency would be a start though I can't see that happening till we get a single operator. Where and how the bikes are stored is also an issue as this and other threads has shown. Even as things are my experience is not as bleak as that of some others. Since the start of this thread I've travelled with a bike of five trains, from four different operators, there's been bike space on all (Three were reserved) I got a seat on all, the only issue was when there was a platform change at short notice and it was a struggle to get the bike across quickly - worst case scenario would have been a half hour wait for the next train.

[pwa]

Having given up trying to use trains even without a bike, I feel that for me the bike question is second on my list. First is the more fundamental problem of paying for a ticket then having to stand because there are too many other folk wanting to use the same train. Our first priority has to be getting every passenger a seat. The last two times I have travelled to Cardiff from Bridgend (20 minutes or so) the train has been so rammed that the guard has been telling people not to try to board. Those trains were after 9am, so not exactly peak time. The first thing I want improved is seat availability, and we can work on bike carrying after that. Both matter, but the seat thing matters more.

pwa: we've covered this on another thread. The question is: what will you do when you've removed all the bike spaces (that's four more seats) and there are still people standing? And the cyclists are still trying to get to work/home. I believe the term for it is thinking that is epistemologically wrong. It's very useful for the TOC to use this approach as they know passengers will relate to it. You can carry it further and apply it to any marginalised group: demonise them and then remove their rights (although not even solving the problem).

It's frightening stuff if you've been on the receiving end of it (as I have) and very, very dark:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=121202

I am a disillusioned former rail user. To the point that I no longer consider rail when thinking how I can get from A to B. I am not willing to pay for a ticket for a ride on which I may have to stand. The inadequacies of rail provision have driven me away. I'm not blaming cyclists, pram pushers or any other user group. I'm blaming the shrivelled Bee Gee and other providers for selling more tickets that they have seats.

Trains are becoming like the Tube, madly overcrowded and something to be endured by the poor sods who have no alternative. Lack of space for bikes is just one of the symptoms.

[Littgull]

Having given up trying to use trains even without a bike, I feel that for me the bike question is second on my list. First is the more fundamental problem of paying for a ticket then having to stand because there are too many other folk wanting to use the same train. Our first priority has to be getting every passenger a seat. The last two times I have travelled to Cardiff from Bridgend (20 minutes or so) the train has been so rammed that the guard has been telling people not to try to board. Those trains were after 9am, so not exactly peak time. The first thing I want improved is seat availability, and we can work on bike carrying after that. Both matter, but the seat thing matters more.

pwa: we've covered this on another thread. The question is: what will you do when you've removed all the bike spaces (that's four more seats) and there are still people standing? And the cyclists are still trying to get to work/home. I believe the term for it is thinking that is epistemologically wrong. It's very useful for the TOC to use this approach as they know passengers will relate to it. You can carry it further and apply it to any marginalised group: demonise them and then remove their rights (although not even solving the problem).

It's frightening stuff if you've been on the receiving end of it (as I have) and very, very dark:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=121202

I am a disillusioned former rail user. To the point that I no longer consider rail when thinking how I can get from A to B. I am not willing to pay for a ticket for a ride on which I may have to stand. The inadequacies of rail provision have driven me away. I'm not blaming cyclists, pram pushers or any other user group. I'm blaming the shrivelled Bee Gee and other providers for selling more tickets that they have seats.

Trains are becoming like the Tube, madly overcrowded and something to be endured by the poor sods who have no alternative. Lack of space for bikes is just one of the symptoms.

I agree with all your points. The problem is that, if like me, you no longer run a car without reliably being able to take your bike in trains it means you are restricted to doing just 'local' rides from and back to your home.

[PH]

I am a disillusioned former rail user. To the point that I no longer consider rail when thinking how I can get from A to B. I am not willing to pay for a ticket for a ride on which I may have to stand.

Rather than dismiss all trains, is it not an option to only travel when you can get a seat reservation? I know that isn't always possible on all routes at all times and we all only have our own experiences to call on - In my case around 80% of my train travel is with a reserved seat and it's unusual on the other 20% to not find one.

[thirdcrank]

... I agree with all your points. The problem is that, if like me, you no longer run a car without reliably being able to take your bike in trains it means you are restricted to doing just 'local' rides from and back to your home.

Increasingly, the problem with all public transport is that it is deteriorating and anybody without access to a car, or with a car but nowhere to park at their destination suffers in consequence.