GWR cycle booking policy attracts 1200-strong petition

hawkinspeter wrote:

What bugs me is how there's all kinds of rules for bikes, but none for push-chairs. I've seen carriages blocked with several push-chairs, yet they're never prevented from boarding whereas I've seen cyclists turned away from non-HST trains just because the train manager decided that there were too many bikes (this varies depending on who the train manager is and what mood they're in).

The pushchair thing holds true on buses, too, though: I've seen women with pushchairs sitting taking up the entirety of the section at the front of the bus which has flip-up seats facing toward the centre, and a backward-facing seat/space intended for a wheelchair.  At no point do they seem to have considered folding up their pushchair and sitting Junior on their lap.

Separate point: I think that the problem we have now is that it is way too much left at the discretion of the member of staff who is there at the time and hasn't had their snickers yet - this seems to even be the point  of the article, in that  the member of staff there at the time exercises their discretion by being an *rse rather than seeing whether there's actually any space.  Seems to be that you can get on a train with four large bags, or a wheely-suitcase thing,  but don't you dare try and take a bike on there (yes, I know we have room, but you didn't book so f off!).

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

What bugs me is how there's all kinds of rules for bikes, but none for push-chairs. I've seen carriages blocked with several push-chairs, yet they're never prevented from boarding whereas I've seen cyclists turned away from non-HST trains just because the train manager decided that there were too many bikes (this varies depending on who the train manager is and what mood they're in).

The pushchair thing holds true on buses, too, though: I've seen women with pushchairs sitting taking up the entirety of the section at the front of the bus which has flip-up seats facing toward the centre, and a backward-facing seat/space intended for a wheelchair.  At no point do they seem to have considered folding up their pushchair and sitting Junior on their lap.

Separate point: I think that the problem we have now is that it is way too much left at the discretion of the member of staff who is there at the time and hasn't had their snickers yet - this seems to even be the point  of the article, in that  the member of staff there at the time exercises their discretion by being an *rse rather than seeing whether there's actually any space.  Seems to be that you can get on a train with four large bags, or a wheely-suitcase thing,  but don't you dare try and take a bike on there (yes, I know we have room, but you didn't book so f off!).

To be fair, I can sympathise with people trying to wrestle kids and push-chairs onto trains and buses. It's not so much that I begrudge them using lots of space, it's just that there's all these bullshit excuses for not providing enough bike spaces.

We are their customers and yet they don't see that they should be responding to customer requirements. Instead, they belittle us and try to make us grateful that we are even allowed to use the service.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

What bugs me is how there's all kinds of rules for bikes, but none for push-chairs. I've seen carriages blocked with several push-chairs, yet they're never prevented from boarding whereas I've seen cyclists turned away from non-HST trains just because the train manager decided that there were too many bikes (this varies depending on who the train manager is and what mood they're in).

The pushchair thing holds true on buses, too, though: I've seen women with pushchairs sitting taking up the entirety of the section at the front of the bus which has flip-up seats facing toward the centre, and a backward-facing seat/space intended for a wheelchair.  At no point do they seem to have considered folding up their pushchair and sitting Junior on their lap.

Separate point: I think that the problem we have now is that it is way too much left at the discretion of the member of staff who is there at the time and hasn't had their snickers yet - this seems to even be the point  of the article, in that  the member of staff there at the time exercises their discretion by being an *rse rather than seeing whether there's actually any space.  Seems to be that you can get on a train with four large bags, or a wheely-suitcase thing,  but don't you dare try and take a bike on there (yes, I know we have room, but you didn't book so f off!).

To be fair, I can sympathise with people trying to wrestle kids and push-chairs onto trains and buses. It's not so much that I begrudge them using lots of space, it's just that there's all these bullshit excuses for not providing enough bike spaces.

We are their customers and yet they don't see that they should be responding to customer requirements. Instead, they belittle us and try to make us grateful that we are even allowed to use the service.

Well, they still want be treated by government as if they are "public transport" like the council- and state-run transport of old, and lots of people still think of them as offering some sort of public service, when really they are profit-making companies whose only responsibility lies with their own shareholders.

I'm sorry, I have to wade in here.  There's a balance to be struck between what we as cyclists would like to see and what happens in the real world.

AndyRed3d wrote:

The real problem is there's not enough space on the trains during busy times.

The real problem is there are more people trying to get on the trains than they were ever designed for.  That's a result of population growth and urbanisation without proper infrastructure investment - and when the government tries to increase rail capacity (e.g. HS2) it spends 20 years arguing with NIMBYs.

AndyRed3d wrote:

GWR before you jump at the opportunity to charge even more to travel on the most expensive route in Europe... bear in mind it is already the most expensive route in Europe! Not an achievement that Brunel would be proud of.

 

Brunel was a businessman with a working understanding of supply and demand.  He'd have been hugely proud of a system that had enough demand to support inflated fares for no greater outlay.

AndyRed3d wrote:

...more important to the overall service is whether it's F.. L.. E.. X.. I.. B.. L.. E.  Like as in making a service that helps people fit around what life throws at them. Not - forcing everyone to fit into the most profitable service for GWR.

 

GWR are a business.  They'll do whatever is most profitable within the law.  Unless the law mandates a certain level of service to cyclists, if forcing cyclists to do something inconvenient improves their profits they will do it.  Sorry.

AndyRed3d wrote:

...if we want a more positive transport system that helps grow the economy outside of London, then encouraging Bikes on Trains with more space (instead of taking up space with massive empty leather seats) would be a start. 

But on this - I completely agree.

jollygoodvelo wrote:

The real problem is there are more people trying to get on the trains than they were ever designed for.  That's a result of population growth and urbanisation without proper infrastructure investment - and when the government tries to increase rail capacity (e.g. HS2) it spends 20 years arguing with NIMBYs.

Because infrastructure investment involves spending money and thinking long term.  Given the nature of rail franchises, no trainco wants to look that far ahead or jeopardise their short term profits to that degree...

I'm also not entirely convinced that HS2 (yes, I understand that you are using it as an example) will make a blind bit of difference as regards increasing rail capacity for the majority of the country.   After all, its going from Leeds to London via Birmingham.  So, nowhere covered by GWR, for a start.

Quote:

GWR are a business.  They'll do whatever is most profitable within the law.  Unless the law mandates a certain level of service to cyclists, if forcing cyclists to do something inconvenient improves their profits they will do it.  Sorry.

And that will never happen.

There is a very nice cycle path between Bath and Bristol - maybe use that from time to time?

AndyRed3d wrote:

I've got three slightly helpful ranty points to make about this:

1. This is a real problem, that GWR have chosen the wrong solution to. 

I commute from Bath to Bristol every day, and like many people in the modern world, my life doesn't work like clockwork. I have to leave the office when I have finished the work I have to complete today - NOT when my bike is booked on the train. Imagine the uproar if GWR forced ALL passengers to book before their journey?! 

The real problem is there's not enough space on the trains during busy times. If you think positively and creatively about this as a joined up transport system (like Brunel used to do - i.e.  he built the most innovative ship of it's time in addition to a railway, to ensure you could get from London to New York in style on schedule), then it makes commercial sense to adapt your trains to attract more cyclists, not less. And while you're at it, do a proper service design job and adapt them so that the cyclists can board quickly, instead of one at a time...

Even if there was a SMALL charge to carry a bike, that would be more prefereable than the current policy.  Mind you, GWR before you jump at the opportunity to charge even more to travel on the most expensive route in Europe... bear in mind it is already the most expensive route in Europe! Not an achievement that Brunel would be proud of. 

2. I believe (this needs checking) that the new high speed trains coming in 2017 will have 10 bike spaces and they are easier to board. I hope this is true. It sounds quite exciting. But more important to the overall service is whether it's F.. L.. E.. X.. I.. B.. L.. E.  Like as in making a service that helps people fit around what life throws at them. Not - forcing everyone to fit into the most profitable service for GWR.

3. Personally I would be less worried about this if there was adequate secure bike parking at the station. Having recently had my bike stolen from Bath station (about which GWR, council, Police etc seem to not give a shite), I'm only happy to park my new bike on the platform under the CCTV cameras. But this space is rediculously limited, and when full I have to take my bike with me on the train. Currently their only solution to this is to put up signs everywhere saying "Watch out thieves about". Instead of providing cameras or some actual useful security in the tunnel, or space on their trains.

Another alternative might be to create a more joined up ticketing system like the Oyster card in London. I have to bike + train currently, as the bus + train would cost more than £3000 a year (in fact £6000 / year for my wife to commute as well, which is a huge chunk of our income) - just to get from Bath to Bristol!

I do genuinely like the new branding, uniforms and interiors - well done GWR on that. But if we want a more positive transport system that helps grow the economy outside of London, then encouraging Bikes on Trains with more space (instead of taking up space with massive empty leather seats) would be a start. 

 </rant>

paulrattew wrote:

 

I'm lucky though that I always know what service I am going to take. My worries lie more around what would happen if they cancel a service that you have booked on to at the last minute - could you end up stranded because they have cancelled and you havent booked onto the replacement?

If you are commuting then you don't know what train you are going to get.

And yes the policy appears to apply whether the train has been cancelled or not.   And indeed if you have a puncture on the way to the station. 

And when you say "last minute" that means "at least two hours in advance".   So not exactly spontaneous or capable of coping with the realities of busy lives. 

Edgeley wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

 

I'm lucky though that I always know what service I am going to take. My worries lie more around what would happen if they cancel a service that you have booked on to at the last minute - could you end up stranded because they have cancelled and you havent booked onto the replacement?

If you are commuting then you don't know what train you are going to get.

And yes the policy appears to apply whether the train has been cancelled or not.   And indeed if you have a puncture on the way to the station. 

And when you say "last minute" that means "at least two hours in advance".   So not exactly spontaneous or capable of coping with the realities of busy lives. 

Remembering that the Train Operating Companies don't own the trains. If you were in charge, what would your policy be?

• First come, first served; great if you get on at the origin station, but potentially risky for everybody else.
• Reserve a place in advance; doesn't allow for last minute changes of plan.

Remembering that the Train Operating Companies don't own the trains. If you were in charge, what would your policy be?

• First come, first served; great if you get on at the origin station, but potentially risky for everybody else.
• Reserve a place in advance; doesn't allow for last minute changes of plan.

[/quote]

The previous regime was ok.  Bookers got priority, then anyone else let on if there was space.

Now they are running with empty racks.  Which is stupid.

The TOCs generally lease the trains from leasing companies, but that is entirely irrelevant to their cycling policies, not least because it is the TOCS that specify the layouts of each train.  GWR are currently leasing trains with spaces for bicycles and are preventing people from using them.

Edgeley wrote:

If you are commuting then you don't know what train you are going to get.

Whilst there may always be the occassional late finish, wouldn't commuters have one of the more well established routines ? 

fukawitribe wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

If you are commuting then you don't know what train you are going to get.

Whilst there may always be the occassional late finish, wouldn't commuters have one of the more well established routines ? 

Unless you're a clock-watcher that has no distance to go from work to station (in which case you might not be taking a bike), or no reason to be delayed en-route (shopping?) , then I'd suggest even an 'established' routine has enough vagueries to be problematic, if my years of commuting are anything to go by...