A new reason for a train delay

[whole diary]

[johoare]

Yesterday the 8am from Maidenhead to Paddington was 10 minutes late arriving and leaving.. We were told why and apparently someone had got on the train before Tilehurst, put their bike at the back of the train (it's an HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) and then wanted to get off at Tilehurst where, apparently, only the front 5 carriages fit on the platform.

So the driver had to get permission to pull the train forward so the passenger could retrieve their bike..

I am guessing it's a mistake they will only be allowed to make once  This particular train doesn't stop at Reading otherwise I imagine they'd have made them stay on the train until there..

[ChrisB]

I'd have taken them to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains). That way, they *would* do this just the once!

[bobm]

It is amazing how often bikes are a cause of delay.

I was coming back from the West Country on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) at the weekend and we were delayed several times because of issues with bicycles.

It culimated with someone getting on at Highbridge & Burnham in Coach F hoping to wheel it through to standard class.  On discovering he could not get it past the buffet counter he then decided to put it in the vestibule between F & G.

The train manager, who had already had problems with loading bikes in the correct place, took a pragmatic view after discovering the person in F was going to Bristol and told them to take it out at Weston-super-Mare and wheel it down the platform to the other end of the coach and put it in the space near the buffet "but only because you are going to Bristol".

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

This also happened very recently at Honeybourne causing a 10 minute delay.

[trainer]

So, is the issue, the bike, the riders not understanding the system, or the lack of willingness/ability to accommodate anything other than an unencumbered passenger on a train?  Or possibly all of the above?

[ChrisB]

The cyclist being too lazy to gen up in advance as to where they need to wait in the platform, basically.

[trainer]

That's clearly put the blame on the pesky 'customer' then

[Southern Stag]

It sounds like the issue was that at Tilehurst the front 5 carriages only were opened, which would not include the TGS at the back where the bike was stored. At nearly all station the TGS is on the platform and that is the correct place to load a bike. If the cyclist was not a regular traveller they may well not have known that at Tilehurst their bike would not be accessible. Staff nearly always direct passengers to the TGS at the rear as well if they have bicycles.

[ChrisB]

Don't you have to book a cycle onto HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) in the peaks?

[IndustryInsider]

The Cotswold Line (just for a change) is a little awkward for bike passengers with HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s.

If you board at Worcester Foregate Street and the train is in the correct formation, then you load the bike at the rear, unless you're travelling to Evesham, in which case it has to be the front.  However if the train is in reverse, you're in trouble and have to either load it in the rear power car or a rear coach and then transfer it to the front at Worcester Shrub Hill.  If you're boarding at Great Malvern and all the other stations and the train is in reverse you only have to move the bike at Shrub Hill if you're going to Evesham though, otherwise it's fine at the rear. 

Coming the other way, if you're travelling with your bike you generally load it in the front (or rear if in reverse), but again if in reverse formation and you want to go to Moreton-In-Marsh you have to load at the front.  Similarly, if you want to board at Moreton and it's in reverse you need to load at the front but then move it to the rear at Worcester Shrub Hill - unless of course you want Pershore or Evesham in which case it has to be loaded in the middle.

Then of course, there's the 180s, which have spaces at either end, but if you want Combe, Finstock, Ascott, Shipton or Honeybourne in the down direction then it has to be the front, although coming the other way you needn't worry about Honeybourne as it can be either end.

At least it's nice and simple with Turbo's - as long as there's no more than two per vestibule they can be loaded anywhere.  Of course, if it's a Class 166 then there's a special bike compartment in the middle carriage as well, though you wouldn't know that until it arrived at the platform and you were in the know.  Oh, and I almost forgot, like the passengers, bikes need to be loaded in the correct portion of the train if it's a 6-car from London splitting at Oxford.  That's usually the front, though there's one train on a Sunday where the rear three are where you have to board.

To summarise, isn't it any wonder people get confused and delays occur?!

[Red Squirrel]

To summarise, isn't it any wonder people get confused and delays occur?!

I've often considered, and then dismissed, the thought of putting the bike (or indeed the whole family's bikes) on a train. I dismiss it because the whole process seems too hit-or-miss and complicated. Public transport in this country is not remotely cyclist-friendly, which I find a bit bizarre given that for many people the bicycle could be the perfect way of completing the last mile or so of their journey.

[trainer]

In Austria and Switzerland there is often wagon with a huge bike pictogram on the side which makes everything clear.  However, this is usually on primarily tourist routes: I don't recall seeing them on 'proper' Intercity trains.  I think for the reasons Insider gives, bikes will remain problematic (as they are on the roads for different reasons) to other users of trains.  Nevertheless, I think efforts to accommodate them should still be made. 

[grahame]

... for many people the bicycle could be the perfect way of completing the last mile or so of their journey.

In London you can hire a cycle at the far end ... and I think I've seen that there are some less marketed schemes elsewhere too.   Anyone know of these?

I'd have taken them to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains). That way, they *would* do this just the once!

The cyclist being too lazy to gen up in advance as to where they need to wait in the platform, basically.

Hmmm ... on the basis that we've not heard this reason before, I don't think it was a repeat "offence".

I travelled on a train to a station I had never got off at before yesterday, and the conductor advised me that it had a very short platform and I should make my way to the extreme rear of the train in order to alight, which I did.   Had he NOT alerted me to this (and some stations serving surprisingly big communities have short platforms), I don't think that I would have been to blame for not having "genned up in advance" (how?), nor should I have been taken on to the next station to teach me a lesson.   Either of those actions would have resulted in a aggrieved passenger, and potentially the loss of future business which would had been conducted in a benign way - in other words, once I knew the system I would have followed it.

[Red Squirrel]

bikes will remain problematic... ...on the roads for different reasons
 

Bikes are not the problem. I'd agree that they aren't the whole solution either, but the main problem on the roads is the fact that we have allowed one type of user to completely dominate.

[ellendune]

bikes will remain problematic... ...on the roads for different reasons
 

Bikes are not the problem. I'd agree that they aren't the whole solution either, but the main problem on the roads is the fact that we have allowed one type of user to completely dominate.

I strongly agree.  If road improvements had been made to include cycle lanes and in some cases proper footways they there would not be a problem. However in many cases all the space was taken by the car.  How many edge of town roads only have a rough grass verge for pedestrians when cars are allowed to 50 or 60 mph.