Can you take bikes on replacement buses?

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think I've ever heard an announcement about upcoming disruption that doesn't specify that non-folding bicycles can't be carried on replacement buses, so anyone who uses the train regularly will have heard this and will "know the score".
The issue comes with infrequent travellers who decide that taking their bike on a train to the countryside would be a good idea, and are then disappointed when they arrive at the station to be told they can't take their bike.
As we start to move "back to normal" leisure travel is likely to increase, and this will no doubt include cyclists. For routes that are particularly popular with cyclists (Settle-Carlisle, Hope Valley, Anglian branches among others) perhaps there is a case for minibuses with trailers or the "bike buses" mentioned upthread to be used.
However those need to be paid for, and as others have pointed out, taking a bike on a train is usually free. Perhaps if non-folding bikes provided revenue for the operator there would be more incentive to provide a service during disruption. Something like a flat £5 charge per bike would probably suffice.

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't think I've ever heard an announcement about upcoming disruption that doesn't specify that non-folding bicycles can't be carried on replacement buses, so anyone who uses the train regularly will have heard this and will "know the score".
The issue comes with infrequent travellers who decide that taking their bike on a train to the countryside would be a good idea, and are then disappointed when they arrive at the station to be told they can't take their bike.
As we start to move "back to normal" leisure travel is likely to increase, and this will no doubt include cyclists. For routes that are particularly popular with cyclists (Settle-Carlisle, Hope Valley, Anglian branches among others) perhaps there is a case for minibuses with trailers or the "bike buses" mentioned upthread to be used.
However those need to be paid for, and as others have pointed out, taking a bike on a train is usually free. Perhaps if non-folding bikes provided revenue for the operator there would be more incentive to provide a service during disruption. Something like a flat £5 charge per bike would probably suffice.

I'm puzzled as to where each of these trailers or bike buses are supposed to be operating - at each terminal, every main station, over what distance ? For what period - 7 days a week at 18 hour days ?
How many extra bus drivers will be needed, what do they do for the hours when there are no bikes?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm puzzled as to where each of these trailers or bike buses are supposed to be operating - at each terminal, every main station, over what distance ? For what period - 7 days a week at 18 hour days ?
How many extra bus drivers will be needed, what do they do for the hours when there are no bikes?

I did say "for routes that are particularly popular with cyclists". Not that there should be a fleet of vans at every station in the country. Rail engineering works are usually planned months or years in advance and generally aren't going on everywhere at the same time. For example if there's a planned blockade between Skipton and Carlisle on a hot bank holiday weekend, being able to cater to cyclists on that route should be doable. The problem, as I stated in my post, is that such things have to be paid for: that's why I'd support charging for non-folding bicycles. If you've paid to have your bike carried, the operator has effectively agreed a contract to convey it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the TOCs not wanting such a contract in place is precisely why they don't charge.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think the TOCs not wanting such a contract in place is precisely why they don't charge.

You're probably right...
I do wonder what the obligations would be on the WHL if people have pre-booked on a service that should have one of the 153s, but the 153 is unavailable?

 

[Robertj21a]

I think the TOCs not wanting such a contract in place is precisely why they don't charge.

Very true. I can't imagine any UK train operator wants to be contracted to carry bikes when they know only too well of the difficulties that are likely to arise.
I wonder how foreign railways cope with bike transport problems ?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

TER Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes (first one I looked at): "Dans les cars, les vélos sont admis en soute, dans la limite de trois et sous réserve d’espace disponible." (In coaches, bicycles are allowed in the hold, with a limit of three, and subject to available space.)

 

[awsnews]

I'm puzzled as to where each of these trailers or bike buses are supposed to be operating - at each terminal, every main station, over what distance ? For what period - 7 days a week at 18 hour days ?
How many extra bus drivers will be needed, what do they do for the hours when there are no bikes?

It wouldn't just be a case of how many drivers would be required, you need an adidtional category on your licence if the trailer is more than 750kg.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're probably right...
I do wonder what the obligations would be on the WHL if people have pre-booked on a service that should have one of the 153s, but the 153 is unavailable?

I doubt there are any obligations if it's free, but if ScotRail want to retain their credibility they'd need to do something, e.g. hire a van and driver. Isn't there going to be a spare undiagrammed 153 anyway?

 

[unlevel42]

If people are serious/lazy enough to want their bikes carried for free into our scenic areas they should join a group and hire a van/trailer.
Just because bikes have been carried in the past does not mean that there is a "right" to be transported.
Other leisure users usually don't bring their kayaks, hang gliders, diving equipment etc.
I live in Sheffield where serious cyclists have no problem cycling into the High Peak and have been doing it for decades.
Cars with racks of bikes are common and most have the sense to park away from the "attractions". At least one group from the East Midlands regularly park up at Bamford/Hope station car park on weekends- places were good circular routes are available.

There are people who need to use their bike in this area -as their bike is needed to complete journeys for work and education.
Bikes should only be allowed on Hope Valley trains if they are Derbyshire residents or attending Hope Valley College or under seventeen.

 

[talltim]

Good luck with firstly sticking a bike rack on top of a double decker and secondly avoiding bridge strikes....

Where did he say on top. The racks he was talking about are on the front. (Which has always seemed weird to me, but)
Canadian example

 

[Wolfie]

If people are serious/lazy enough to want their bikes carried for free into our scenic areas they should join a group and hire a van/trailer.
Just because bikes have been carried in the past does not mean that there is a "right" to be transported.
Other leisure users usually don't bring their kayaks, hang gliders, diving equipment etc.
I live in Sheffield where serious cyclists have no problem cycling into the High Peak and have been doing it for decades.
Cars with racks of bikes are common and most have the sense to park away from the "attractions". At least one group from the East Midlands regularly park up at Bamford/Hope station car park on weekends- places were good circular routes are available.

There are people who need to use their bike in this area -as their bike is needed to complete journeys for work and education.
Bikes should only be allowed on Hope Valley trains if they are Derbyshire residents or attending Hope Valley College or under seventeen.

Re your last para, if you expect special privileges for local residents l trust that they are going to pick up the whole cost of providing that service. Expecting outsiders to subsidise your services while trying to stop them fully using those very same services is chutzpah of the highest order.

 

[lincolnshire]

If people are serious/lazy enough to want their bikes carried for free into our scenic areas they should join a group and hire a van/trailer.
Just because bikes have been carried in the past does not mean that there is a "right" to be transported.
Other leisure users usually don't bring their kayaks, hang gliders, diving equipment etc.
I live in Sheffield where serious cyclists have no problem cycling into the High Peak and have been doing it for decades.
Cars with racks of bikes are common and most have the sense to park away from the "attractions". At least one group from the East Midlands regularly park up at Bamford/Hope station car park on weekends- places were good circular routes are available.

There are people who need to use their bike in this area -as their bike is needed to complete journeys for work and education.
Bikes should only be allowed on Hope Valley trains if they are Derbyshire residents or attending Hope Valley College or under seventeen.

Bamford & Hope Station car parks are as such private property and are provided for parking of rail travellers only and are not as such a public car park.

 

[TheSel]

If people are serious/lazy enough to want their bikes carried for free into our scenic areas they should join a group and hire a van/trailer.
Just because bikes have been carried in the past does not mean that there is a "right" to be transported.
Other leisure users usually don't bring their kayaks, hang gliders, diving equipment etc.
I live in Sheffield where serious cyclists have no problem cycling into the High Peak and have been doing it for decades.
Cars with racks of bikes are common and most have the sense to park away from the "attractions". At least one group from the East Midlands regularly park up at Bamford/Hope station car park on weekends- places were good circular routes are available.

There are people who need to use their bike in this area -as their bike is needed to complete journeys for work and education.
Bikes should only be allowed on Hope Valley trains if they are Derbyshire residents or attending Hope Valley College or under seventeen.

My bike is over twenty years old. Why do you wish to discriminate against it on grounds of age?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My bike is over twenty years old. Why do you wish to discriminate against it on grounds of age?

I get the impression some people are just misers and can't cope with the idea of others enjoying the use of the rail network for purposes they themselves don't enjoy. Probably the same people who insist on their right to sit in the tip-up seats in the bike or even wheelchair area when there are plenty of other seats spare and a bicycle or wheelchair user boards.

Bicycles only really cause problems on trains when people are inconsiderate (their riders or others). People who can't deal with the needs of other members of the public (whether they have a bicycle with them or not) might be better off purchasing a car.

 

[unlevel42]

Re your last para, if you expect special privileges for local residents l trust that they are going to pick up the whole cost of providing that service. Expecting outsiders to subsidise your services while trying to stop them fully using those very same services is chutzpah of the highest order.

Why not?
In the last year I have paid far more for my train travel than the locals in London, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Wales and I have paid less than foreigners in South Yorkshire.
Privileges for local residents is common on our railways, buses, trams, ferries and planes throughout many parts of the UK. The subsidy is paid by...

What cost?
The spaces are already there. The proof of age is done. Address can be done easily and they don't wear lycra.

Priority?
Continued improvement of the Hope Valley services will need increased local patronage regularly all year round. Guaranteeing space for the locals who need their bikes to complete journeys all year round is a small but essential part of providing a local service.

Bamford & Hope Station car parks are as such private property and are provided for parking of rail travellers only and are not as such a public car park.

I used your car park at Bamford, Hope and Edale at least a hundred times without using a train.
I have also sat in your shelters to get out of the rain. Like thousands of tourists before and after.
I think the Duke of Edinburgh is the biggest problem, he has so many mini-buses filled with so many kids.
Weekend-tourists.
Weekdays-very few commuters.
Bamford car park will be out of action soon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I used your car park at Bamford, Hope and Edale at least a hundred times without using a train.
I have also sat in your shelters to get out of the rain. Like thousands of tourists before and after.
I think the Duke of Edinburgh is the biggest problem, he has so many mini-buses filled with so many kids.
Weekend-tourists.
Weekdays-very few commuters.
Bamford car park will be out of action soon.

Seriously? Those kids are benefitting from the scheme massively. Kids are our future.

If you're not into sharing your public transport with, er, the public, and their own needs and desires as well as yours, I would really suggest a car to be a good investment.

 

[zwk500]

What cost?
The spaces are already there. The proof of age is done. Address can be done easily and they don't wear lycra.

Enforcement - if the TOC is operating a limited service, it will need to ensure it's not misused. Staff are almost certain to be needed, and the additional costs will need to be revenue-neutral to the TOC (they won't mind if the money comes from grants/the CC rather than fares, but they will want to make sure it doesn't make a loss to operate).

Priority?
Continued improvement of the Hope Valley services will need increased local patronage regularly all year round. Guaranteeing space for the locals who need their bikes to complete journeys all year round is a small but essential part of providing a local service.

Guaranteeing space for locals using bikes as last & first mile is important, but is there any reason why non-locals have to be completely banned?

Regardless, I think we've drifted off from the topic of Bikes on RRB's specifically.

 

[unlevel42]

Seriously? Those kids are benefitting from the scheme massively. Kids are our future.

If you're not into sharing your public transport with, er, the public, and their own needs and desires as well as yours, I would really suggest a car to be a good investment.

No -not seriously. Must remind myself not to make very bad jokes, particularly having been involved with the Duke of Edinburgh scheme since 1971 when as local 6th formers we rescued some lost DofE scouts from their idiot leaders near Llyn Dulyn in the Carneddau and later helping children from the most deprived schools in Sheffield access their local hills.

As to sharing, have I not emphasised that more Derbyshire cyclists using trains- particularly teenagers should be promoted and encouraged.

....Guaranteeing space for locals using bikes as last & first mile is important, but is there any reason why non-locals have to be completely banned?

Regardless, I think we've drifted off from the topic of Bikes on RRB's specifically.

The Hope Valley line already receives support from Derbyshire County Council paid for by Derbyshire people and businesses. Local people and business are also very active in supporting their local stations trying to protect long term viability by promoting local usage. I also firmly believe that local young people 15-21 should have a priority.

As for Bustitution, Grindleford, Edale, Chinley and New Mills Central cannot be served by coaches or buses in a practical way and so a minibus is used.
Travellers from Sheffield/Chesterfield to Stockport/Manchester completely miss out the area.

 

[biko]

Very true. I can't imagine any UK train operator wants to be contracted to carry bikes when they know only too well of the difficulties that are likely to arise.
I wonder how foreign railways cope with bike transport problems ?

Dutch operators charge €7.50 for a bicycle day ticket and don't allow bikes in RRBs. They just say 'bad luck'. I had a bicycle for commuting parked at a station and when I wanted to bring it back home for the holidays, I had to cycle the last 20 km (15 miles or so) on the old uncomfortable bicycle. But in practice I've seen people taking bicycles on coaches in the luggage area underneath the seats, but that was a different TOC from the one I was using.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dutch operators charge €7.50 for a bicycle day ticket and don't allow bikes in RRBs. They just say 'bad luck'. I had a bicycle for commuting parked at a station and when I wanted to bring it back home for the holidays, I had to cycle the last 20 km (15 miles or so) on the old uncomfortable bicycle. But in practice I've seen people taking bicycles on coaches in the luggage area underneath the seats, but that was a different TOC from the one I was using.

To be fair what you say (keeping another bike at the other end) is usually a better plan for anyone making one journey regularly. So providing quality, genuinely secure cycle storage at stations, even more so rural ones like these, is a good way to reduce the need for that sort of cycle carriage on board - you only then need to take it on the train if you need to bring it home for some reason.

I say "genuinely secure" because even those bike lockers don't seem to be made of substantial enough metal that you can't kick the door in knowing there's a bike inside. I still think the Dutch style "bewaakte Fietsenstallingen" (staffed cycle storage facilities, usually for a small fee) need some consideration here. And this could perhaps be offered for free with a free ticket to come back and collect in the event of an unplanned RRB.

 

[biko]

To be fair what you say (keeping another bike at the other end) is usually a better plan for anyone making one journey regularly. So providing quality, genuinely secure cycle storage at stations, even more so rural ones like these, is a good way to reduce the need for that sort of cycle carriage on board - you only then need to take it on the train if you need to bring it home for some reason.

I say "genuinely secure" because even those bike lockers don't seem to be made of substantial enough metal that you can't kick the door in knowing there's a bike inside. I still think the Dutch style "bewaakte Fietsenstallingen" (staffed cycle storage facilities, usually for a small fee) need some consideration here. And this could perhaps be offered for free with a free ticket to come back and collect in the event of an unplanned RRB.

Everybody who needs a bicycle regularly at the destination just has a second bike over here. I only see bicycles transported on the train during the weekends and the type of bicycle is quite different. If you want to use one semi-regularly, just hire a OV-fiets, which conveniently is lower priced than the bicycle ticket.

With respect to your second comment, I honestly believe Dutch users don't care about that. I had my bike at an unstaffed, unsecured 'fietsenstalling', basically a large car park for bikes. This bicycle parking was completely full in the evenings, but full of old bicycles of which it is not a huge problem if it is stolen. People with a more expensive bike used the bicycle lockers, but there were only 10 lockers on about 200 bikes in total I think. Those are not stolen or damaged, because it is way easier to pick any other bicycle in the normal area. My bike had the saddle removed twice, I still don't know why anyone would want my saddle from the Dutch equivalent of Poundland...

The staffed storage facilities are only found at the really large stations, I used a suburban one, so there was no staff at all. These are quite expensive if you want to park your bike there the whole time and are more focused on people taking the train at the origin side of their trip. Those are normally free for the first 24 hours.

 

[JKF]

What's this a bus for bikes? I've never seen that before is that a new thing?

I saw bikes being carried on the outside of buses around twenty years ago in that bastion of integrated public transport - small town USA!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I saw bikes being carried on the outside of buses around twenty years ago in that bastion of integrated public transport - small town USA!

It seems that the ability to put them on the front (where the driver can watch them) is fairly key to this working. I'm amazed that's allowed anywhere, as a couple of pushbikes would pose more threat to an errant pedestrian than even a bull bar.

 

[BluePenguin]

Strictly speaking no. However, I was once allowed to take my bike on by kind driver. I had cycled 20 miles that evening for my Deliveroo shift and did not have the energy to cycle home so thought I would try chances and was in luck. It turned out that several other people had the same idea and were also let on. It was late evening and hardly any passengers around which was definitely in our favour

 

[Wolfie]

I saw bikes being carried on the outside of buses around twenty years ago in that bastion of integrated public transport - small town USA!

That bastion - not! - of pedestrian safety....

It seems that the ability to put them on the front (where the driver can watch them) is fairly key to this working. I'm amazed that's allowed anywhere, as a couple of pushbikes would pose more threat to an errant pedestrian than even a bull bar.

Exactly. That's why there is zero chance of doing this in UK.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It seems that the ability to put them on the front (where the driver can watch them) is fairly key to this working. I'm amazed that's allowed anywhere, as a couple of pushbikes would pose more threat to an errant pedestrian than even a bull bar.

A few people have quoted the safety aspect. I'm a little puzzled by it. I can see that bikes tend to have bits sticking out which you wouldn't want to bang into, but surely the only situation where it's going to matter is if the bus runs into a pedestrian = a rare-ish event if bus drivers are well trained (I would expect that on average, bus drivers would tend to be driving more safely than car drivers) and one that's likely to severely injure the pedestrian anyway, bike or no bike. And of course we allow bikes, with all their bits sticking out, to be pedalled when not attached to a bus. Allowing buses to transport bikes would enable some journeys by bike/bus that are currently difficult to do without driving, and so would undoubtedly remove an (admittedly small) number of cars from the road, which would in itself increase overall safety. Safety is never an absolute thing - it's always a balance between the risks and benefits of allowing something - and I wonder the fact that bikes on the front of buses are allowed in the US represents a rare case of the US getting a better risk-benefit balance than the UK?

 

[al78]

It seems that the ability to put them on the front (where the driver can watch them) is fairly key to this working. I'm amazed that's allowed anywhere, as a couple of pushbikes would pose more threat to an errant pedestrian than even a bull bar.

How about fitting them on the back, or maybe even the bus could tow a trailer.

Bring your bike on board a FlixBus

Take your bicycle on your FlixBus trip & explore your favourite cities and landscapes by bike!

www.flixbus.co.uk

Buses in West of England to get trailers for bikes?

Boss of region's biggest public transport provider says that official resistance to racks may mean trailers are the solution

road.cc

Buses and coaches | Cycling UK

Headline Message More households live near a bus stop than they do a train station, so for anyone needing to combine a cycle journey with public tranpsort, a bus service may be a particularly useful option. In rural areas where public transport services are limited, cycling to a bus stop might...

www.cyclinguk.org

 

[Bletchleyite]

A few people have quoted the safety aspect. I'm a little puzzled by it. I can see that bikes tend to have bits sticking out which you wouldn't want to bang into, but surely the only situation where it's going to matter is if the bus runs into a pedestrian = a rare-ish event if bus drivers are well trained (I would expect that on average, bus drivers would tend to be driving more safely than car drivers) and one that's likely to severely injure the pedestrian anyway, bike or no bike. And of course we allow bikes, with all their bits sticking out, to be pedalled when not attached to a bus.

A bicycle being ridden would have to hit a pedestrian at a very precise angle to result in serious injury (it does happen, but not that often) - more likely they'll glance off, sending both flying but not causing serious injury. Sideways on the front of a bus it would be much more hazardous.

How about fitting them on the back, or maybe even the bus could tow a trailer.

Bring your bike on board a FlixBus

Take your bicycle on your FlixBus trip & explore your favourite cities and landscapes by bike!

www.flixbus.co.uk

Buses in West of England to get trailers for bikes?

Boss of region's biggest public transport provider says that official resistance to racks may mean trailers are the solution

road.cc

Buses and coaches | Cycling UK

Headline Message More households live near a bus stop than they do a train station, so for anyone needing to combine a cycle journey with public tranpsort, a bus service may be a particularly useful option. In rural areas where public transport services are limited, cycling to a bus stop might...

www.cyclinguk.org

The trouble with the back is that nobody is watching, though perhaps some sort of driver controlled locking mechanism would solve that.

 

[jon0844]

A few people have quoted the safety aspect. I'm a little puzzled by it. I can see that bikes tend to have bits sticking out which you wouldn't want to bang into, but surely the only situation where it's going to matter is if the bus runs into a pedestrian = a rare-ish event if bus drivers are well trained (I would expect that on average, bus drivers would tend to be driving more safely than car drivers) and one that's likely to severely injure the pedestrian anyway, bike or no bike. And of course we allow bikes, with all their bits sticking out, to be pedalled when not attached to a bus. Allowing buses to transport bikes would enable some journeys by bike/bus that are currently difficult to do without driving, and so would undoubtedly remove an (admittedly small) number of cars from the road, which would in itself increase overall safety. Safety is never an absolute thing - it's always a balance between the risks and benefits of allowing something - and I wonder the fact that bikes on the front of buses are allowed in the US represents a rare case of the US getting a better risk-benefit balance than the UK?

There are quite a few bus routes, and probably even more for RRB work, where buses have to use junctions - so how does it work when the bus driver has to sit back 2 metres from the end of the road to see out? Or do they poke the bikes out into moving traffic? RRBs often drive around residential estates, where shoddy parking at junctions would make it impossible to safely use a junction.

Bikes on the front is a, frankly, ridiculous idea and I'm amazed it's allowed anywhere. Maybe some places have done it for so long there are grandfather rights, but there's no way we'd do that now.

In any case, being able to carry two bikes hardly solves the problem when we're trying to encourage bike usage. It would just create massive disappointment and frustration when being told to wait 30-60 minutes for the next bus.

I remember travelling back from King's Lynn and witnessing some 50 or 60 cyclists boarding a 365 for just one stop. I have no idea how common such things are in rural areas for large cycling groups, but anything the industry sought to do to allow more bikes on trains would have to take into account what happens when it's more than 1 or 2 people per train. Especially on DOO services.

That's why there have to be rules, even if it unfairly penalises someone late at night on an otherwise empty bus/train and why discretion can be applied to that individual situation, but not become an accepted practice.