Great Western Coffee Shop

Can't believe I had missed this one ... you have THREE DAYS to get your entries in ...

Rail Delivery Group - Cycle Rail awards (https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/cycle-rail-awards.html)


See also https://www.facebook.com/NationalRailPlus/ ... original closing date was today, but it's been extended by 3 days; my guess is that they're a bit light on entries in some categories!

If there are really only going to be two cycle spaces on five-coach IE(P|T)s, can we nominate GWR for the booby prize?

Facebook comment on the awards reflects a widespread view that it's not so much the stations - more the trains - that need to be encouraged to improve cycle provision ...

I have always been in two minds about allocating space on trains for cycles, and if carrying cycles, as against to a few more passengers should charged.

Which apparently are to double up as oversize luggage space. We know how well that works in its unofficial role on Voyagers.

I'd introduce a charge too, frankly. Half fare (with tongue in cheek?) for more spaces?

I'd support that, though sadly the franchise agreement doesn't allow it.  And it is one of those subjects where the vocal minority would get disproportionate publicity (as happened in around 2005 when bikes were banned from peak hours trains in the west).

THe next franchise is in only a couple of years time

A charge might work but it would be difficult to implement successfully.

First and least, should it be a fixed charge or proportional to ticket cost?
Secondly, would it apply to all trains or just to those which require bookings for bike spaces?
Thirdly, what would it cover? Would it guarantee a space? If so, it would need to be enforced on the train itself in at least two ways: to ensure that bikes were not taken on the train without a ticket, and to ensure that the spaces were available for those who had booked them, rather than occupied by other types of luggage or even litter collected from carriages, as quite often happens at present. If the charge does not guarantee a space, then what happens when it has been paid and no space is available? A (passenger) ticket does not guarantee a seat unless a reservation has been made, but then you can stand in the corridor, sit in the vestibule, etc. A charge might therefore legitimise leaving bikes in vestibules etc.
Fourthly, what if a space was booked and available on the train but was too small for the bike? This is quite common, at least on Voyagers with their dangly spaces, as the spaces are narrower than many handlebars. I've heard the IEPs will have slightly wider spaces but I'm not holding my breath.
Fifthly, it would then make sense to apply a similar charge to large suitcases and similar items of luggage, though probably at a lower rate as they are easier to stack or tessellate.

One benefit of a charge would probably be to discourage the rather antisocial practice of open ticket holders reserving a bike space on multiple trains, thus blocking availability to others but leaving the space unused.

I'd say a charge could be beneficial to everyone but would probably require a significant improvement to rolling stock facilities. Balancing the needs of various users would be tricky.

I see the shortlist for the awards has been published: https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/cycle-rail-awards/cra-shortlist.html

Among the shortlisted TOCs is CrossCountry for, wait for it, "improvements or excellence in overall customer service for people wishing to make journeys using cycle-rail".

This, presumably, is the same CrossCountry whose first action was to reduce the number of bike spaces per Voyager from four to three. Which is an interesting definition of "improvements or excellence" in "cycle-rail". Do you think there's a Golden Puncture Award they could win?

... and the results can be found at https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/national-cycle-rail-awards-winners-announced/022280
Not sure why the organisers and sponsers don't appear to it prominently on their sites.

Presumably didn't get the Guardian vote. As a bicycle user, i.e. old geezer in a flat hat on a folding bike, one can get the impression that a lot of bicycle facilities are for the benefit of the much reviled "cyclists", Mamils and the like. As someone who effectively uses a bike as a mobility aid, I can understand the difficulty some users will have with Cross Country, and the new GWR facilities.
As Isabelle Clement, of Wheels for Wellbeing, suggests most train operators (and others) are silent on the issue of disabled people and bicycles. It has been mooted in a different context that maybe there should be a test case under the Equality Act against some "providers".
All gets very contentious, not helped by recent offering from BBC Northern Ireland.

As long as any disabled users follow the TOCs instructions as to how to book their assistance, I'm sure turning up with a mobility aid they accept (so no tricycles, but that equates with the rule for everyone) will be accepted just as everyone else.

What makes you think they get a worse deal?

Has anyone actually tried that in a railway context? I know it's been done in some other circumstances but I haven't heard of anyone stating to a TOC that their bike is their mobility aid – perhaps because it's difficult for people in that situation to use trains. Could be interesting.

I don't think I was saying they get a worse deal. But certainly I have seen people struggle with the bike storage on Cross Country, not disabled but not as strong and flexible as they used to be. As has been said in other strands this does potentially affect the dwell time on the new GWR trains, and so has a potentially wider effect than just bicycle users.
The Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/nov/24/new-high-speed-trains-go-slow-on-provision-for-cyclists has some vociferous comments, some more sensible than others (as always).