Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 17:15 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
* Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
Delayed
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
17:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 17:28:16 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: A bit slow off the mark  (Read 7082 times)
CyclingSid
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


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

Cycling UK (United Kingdom) have finally discovered GWR (Great Western Railway) (and LNER» (London North Eastern Railway - about)) 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: 1204


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

Sigh. I should dig back through my old email to find the date when I emailed Cycling UK (United Kingdom) 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: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2019, 13:06:16 »

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 (Great Western Railway) though – more likely it was by/for Hitachi – I know someone who was involved and she doesn't live in GWR-land (or LNER» (London North Eastern Railway - about)).

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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1424


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2019, 14:01:11 »

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» (Department for Transport - about) were so specific about the type of bike.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2019, 15:44:13 »

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» (Department for Transport - about) 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 (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2019, 17:02:02 »

'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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2019, 17:52:13 »

'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: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2019, 20:53:08 »

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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
CyclingSid
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


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

Must admit that I tend to agree with comments on the Cycling UK (United Kingdom) 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: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2019, 16:03:09 »

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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
CyclingSid
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


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

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
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2019, 14:33:01 »

Quote
An LNER» (London North Eastern Railway - about) spokesperson said: “We gather feedback from customers with bikes and cycling organisations to help us understand how we can make potential improvements.

“We have also been working with Hitachi Rail and the [UK (United Kingdom)] Department for Transport to identify where modifications can be made to cycle storage.”
https://road.cc/content/news/268059-lner-rethink-dangerous-bike-storage-new-trains
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
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 customers 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 to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page