Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 16/10/2019 - MRUG meeting
16/10/2019 - ACoRP board nominations close
18/10/2019 - TravelWatch SouthWest
18/10/2019 - GWR meet the team - Westbury
19/10/2019 - MRUG/CS "Thank you" BBQ
21/10/2019 - Ticket booking test - BRI
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 14, 2019, 12:32:55 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[70] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[65] Collapse of Thomas Cook
[60] On crossing borders by public transport - to and within the UK...
[56] London Overground - proposed ticket office reduction of hours
[55] What would you advertise on the floor of your station
[49] Turbo to Barnstaple
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: A bit slow off the mark  (Read 531 times)
CyclingSid
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 516


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« on: October 03, 2019, 10:20:16 am »

Cycling UK have finally discovered GWR (and LNER) bicycle provision:
https://road.cc/content/news/267162-cycling-uk-slams-awful-cycle-storage-gwrs-high-speed-trains
Logged
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 806


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2019, 10:56:43 am »

Sigh. I should dig back through my old email to find the date when I emailed Cycling UK to warn that this was coming and to suggest they might want to do some lobbying. Bit late now all the trains have been built...
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2252


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2019, 01:06:16 pm »

There was a consultation with CUK and other cycling groups before the trains were delivered. Feedback was given and, I think, listened to, but the whole thing was done too late to change anything other than minor details. I'm not sure if the consultation was specifically for GWR though – more likely it was by/for Hitachi – I know someone who was involved and she doesn't live in GWR-land (or LNER).

The fundamental problem is the use of hooks. It's space efficient in theory as it allows n bike spaces in less floor space, but in practice many people and many bikes can't use it: the people are not tall enough or strong enough, the bikes are too heavy or too long or too wide, and the spaces are not accessible independently of each other. And the whole business of lifting a bike onto a hook above head height on a moving, swaying train; at some point someone is going to drop a bike while doing this and injure themselves or, worse, someone else.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1127


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2019, 02:01:11 pm »

The specification required a space able to accommodate two of these: 'Full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame'.  Presumably it does that, even if it can't fit mountain bikes, hybrid bikes, bikes with extra fat tyres or big handlebars etc, or easy access maybe. The question then is why the DfT were so specific about the type of bike.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4166


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2019, 03:44:13 pm »

The specification required a space able to accommodate two of these: 'Full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame'.  Presumably it does that, even if it can't fit mountain bikes, hybrid bikes, bikes with extra fat tyres or big handlebars etc, or easy access maybe. The question then is why the DfT were so specific about the type of bike.

I think you're suggesting the requirement should have been more specific, not less. That bicycle is one of four items listed as "largest of" its type - because the total size allowed is an important factor in overall train sdesign. But this kind of specification can never be exhaustive, or it turns into an interminable list of things and people spend all their time arguing about what's been left out. Really, it is for the recipient of the specification (Hitachi) to add the requisite common sense in interpreting the general requirement, which is:
Quote
TS1265 IEP Vehicles must incorporate a range of luggage stowage solutions. Each solution must ensure that the luggage is securely and safely stowed. The solution design must facilitate the ease of loading and unloading the luggage for the User Population.

If the user population has a reasonable need to bring and stow other types of bicycle, nothing in the specification can be interpreted as saying this should not be provided.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2252


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2019, 05:02:02 pm »

'Full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame' is both specific and unspecific. It implies drop bars but doesn't specify their width. It doesn't specify how the frame size is to be measured. It doesn't take account of the length of the bicycle, which is only loosely correlated with frame size. It doesn't specify tyre size. All these things can and do vary widely while still being a 'full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame'. It does rule out hybrids and mountain bikes, which tend to have wider bars and fatter tyres than 'road bikes', recumbents, which are almost always much longer, tandems ditto, and tricycles, which obviously are significantly wider.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4166


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2019, 05:52:13 pm »

'Full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame' is both specific and unspecific. It implies drop bars but doesn't specify their width. It doesn't specify how the frame size is to be measured. It doesn't take account of the length of the bicycle, which is only loosely correlated with frame size. It doesn't specify tyre size. All these things can and do vary widely while still being a 'full size ‘road’ bicycle with 25inch frame'. It does rule out hybrids and mountain bikes, which tend to have wider bars and fatter tyres than 'road bikes', recumbents, which are almost always much longer, tandems ditto, and tricycles, which obviously are significantly wider.

My point was about specifications, and their underlying logic, not bicycles. If the requirement says "the subsystem shall work with X" you can't infer "the subsystem shall not work with anything other than X". Common sense has to be applied, especially in areas where the real requirement comes from messy things like the travelling public and has only been represented by examples.

The first technical director I knew had a catchphrase he'd often use when you presented the result of a project, explaining how it worked and would meed the requirements. He'd ask pointed technical questions, and end up with "but does it work?". There are always real-world requirements no-one has written down, but customers notice if you ignore.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2252


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2019, 08:53:08 pm »

It seems the cycle cupboards have been designed to fit the bikes in the specification with a passenger of at least average strength and height and not a huge amount else. Does that mean the brief was too specific (in determining too tightly the types of object) or not specific enough (because it should have "these objects and a whole lot of other stuff we don't have the space to list")? Whichever way you look at it, I suspect the overall lack of space to make the cupboards bigger was the constraining factor.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
CyclingSid
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 516


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2019, 07:05:36 am »

Must admit that I tend to agree with comments on the Cycling UK site, that it was probably designed by somebody who doesn't use a bike; much as a lot of the road infrastructure for bikes.

One possible solution that works on Cross Country trains, put you cycle lock (locked) through the front wheel and use that to engage the hook on the train.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2252


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2019, 04:03:09 pm »

One possible solution that works on Cross Country trains, put you cycle lock (locked) through the front wheel and use that to engage the hook on the train.
I can't see how that would work. Surely the as soon as you lift the bike up, the weight of the lock will cause the wheel to rotate so the lock as at the lowest point of the wheel?
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
CyclingSid
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 516


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2019, 07:19:57 pm »

Brakes? Seen it done with a fat-tyred bike on Cross Country. Shouldn't be needed, but at least somebody was willing to try and use an inadequate system.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page