Can you take bikes on replacement buses?

[Robertj21a]

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?

We've spent decades trying to remove dangerous bits and edges from the front of all vehicles. London has even asked for bus fronts to be better angled so as to further reduce pedestrian injuries - it's hardly the time to stick a bike on the front!

 

[RT4038]

We've spent decades trying to remove dangerous bits and edges from the front of all vehicles. London has even asked for bus fronts to be better angled so as to further reduce pedestrian injuries - it's hardly the time to stick a bike on the front!

The very act of a passenger attaching the bike to the front of the bus, and removing it at the end of their journey sounds quite hazardous from a risk point of view (of the bus moving and running down the passenger), or of the passenger not attaching the bike securely and it falling off and being run over by the bus.

This doesn't appear to be very practicable at all.

 

[jon0844]

The very act of a passenger attaching the bike to the front of the bus, and removing it at the end of their journey sounds quite hazardous from a risk point of view (of the bus moving and running down the passenger), or of the passenger not attaching the bike securely and it falling off and being run over by the bus.

This doesn't appear to be very practicable at all.

It would probably make more sense to design a bus that has a large area reserved for storage and with its own door, akin to coach storage but accessible without having to crouch down or climb in. Think of it as a giant bike rack but with the door to the outside.

Problems would be the obvious reduction in seated/standing capacity at all times, and the issue of what the driver does when someone doesn't load properly, or someone thinks it funny to climb in for a free ride, or people steal the bikes at the next stop etc etc.

Ultimately, adapting bikes or trains to store lots of bikes is not really a good idea. It's little wonder that countries that are years ahead of us have not attempted to do so, as they know that with a large sum (perhaps the majority) of people owning a bike, you could never allow them to use public transport as they like.

An earlier solution is for people to buy bikes with quick release wheels and handlebars or pedals that can fold in, so as to make it as narrow as possible and then consider whether to allow them on (on a first come, first served basis) if people don't want an actual folding bike.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think we are in danger of over thinking this. If places like the Netherlands haven't really cracked the idea of carrying many bikes on public bus services then I doubt we are anywhere close to solving the same problem.
In simple terms, full size bikes won't fit on most UK service buses - that's why you can buy bikes that fold down and be carried on most public transport without difficulty or obection.

 

[jon0844]

I think we are in danger of over thinking this. If places like the Netherlands haven't really cracked the idea of carrying many bikes on public bus services then I doubt we are anywhere close to solving the same problem.
In simple terms, full size bikes won't fit on most UK service buses - that's why you can buy bikes that fold down and be carried on most public transport without difficulty or obection.

Exactly. The idea that we adapt vehicles to take one or two bikes is pretty much pointless because once you allow bikes on a bus, everyone will want and expect to be able to do so. Solutions will therefore have to be big and costly ones, like dedicated cycle storage areas or even more bike buses.

Finding a nice driver that will say 'go on, but this time only' is about the best outcome anyone can expect.

Since the start of the pandemic, the surge in bike usage has been quite incredible - even outside of towns and cities. Whether it continues remains to be seen, but even trains that allow bikes off-peak might find they have to tighten up the rules in the months ahead.

One day, you might not need to worry about taking a train one way and a bus the next, as you'll not be able to take a bike on either.

 

[Deepgreen]

Probably easier if the railways just refused to carry all bikes.

Easier (for the TOCs) but unhelpful, and counter to any remaining vestiges of 'green' transport thinking.

 

[Robertj21a]

Easier (for the TOCs) but unhelpful, and counter to any remaining vestiges of 'green' transport thinking.

Anyone truly determined can use those collapsible bikes. It's not like there's no alternative.

 

[323235]

It's simply not possible for buses to safely carry bikes. So what do you expect from the rail operator?

It would be if buses were equipped with safe cycle space, some are in certain areas as has been mentioned. We don't make it easy for people to cycle by being so unprogressive.

In my opinion most buses should have cycle provision nowadays and appropriate contingency should be made for rail passengers with bikes to get to their destination in the event of a replacement bus.

The government needs to address both these issues.

Exactly. The idea that we adapt vehicles to take one or two bikes is pretty much pointless because once you allow bikes on a bus, everyone will want and expect to be able to do so. Solutions will therefore have to be big and costly ones, like dedicated cycle storage areas or even more bike buses.

Finding a nice driver that will say 'go on, but this time only' is about the best outcome anyone can expect.

Since the start of the pandemic, the surge in bike usage has been quite incredible - even outside of towns and cities. Whether it continues remains to be seen, but even trains that allow bikes off-peak might find they have to tighten up the rules in the months ahead.

One day, you might not need to worry about taking a train one way and a bus the next, as you'll not be able to take a bike on either.

A Class 323 used to be able to comfortably carry 10 bikes in the cycle zone at peak time in Cheshire pre-covid, so providing trains continue to be built with enough carriages and designed with adequate cycle provision, I don't think we should have to worry.

I think we are in danger of over thinking this. If places like the Netherlands haven't really cracked the idea of carrying many bikes on public bus services then I doubt we are anywhere close to solving the same problem.
In simple terms, full size bikes won't fit on most UK service buses - that's why you can buy bikes that fold down and be carried on most public transport without difficulty or obection.

Don't the Dutch tend to do quite a lot of cycling round urban areas on the dedicated cycle lanes? I can't see why they would ever want to take them on buses.

 

[unlevel42]

Occasional sunny weekend cyclists have far too much to say about taking bikes on trains.
Only rarely could provision be made for their demand to indulge in their hobby.
No provision could ever cope with the factors that govern demand for this type of travel.

On predominantly rural and sparsely populated lines a case can be made that a social need justifies carriage of bikes.
Local Authorities and PTEs should actively identify this need.

Society also bars and actively prevents 16-21 year olds from getting to their places of work, education and fun. A deplorable public attitude will always ensure that this group will be ignored. This has an effect of depopulating rural areas of useful people.

If you really need the exercise -start from your front door.
If you have to take your bike on holiday-wrap it up.
Leave bike spaces for those who need to use them.

By the way if anybody was inconvenienced when I stuffed my bike into a first class compartment at Tunbridge Wells Central in July 1980 at 7.30 in the morning-sorry.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Occasional sunny weekend cyclists have far too much to say about taking bikes on trains.
Only rarely could provision be made for their demand to indulge in their hobby.
No provision could ever cope with the factors that govern demand for this type of travel.

On predominantly rural and sparsely populated lines a case can be made that a social need justifies carriage of bikes.
Local Authorities and PTEs should actively identify this need.

Society also bars and actively prevents 16-21 year olds from getting to their places of work, education and fun. A deplorable public attitude will always ensure that this group will be ignored. This has an effect of depopulating rural areas of useful people.

If you really need the exercise -start from your front door.
If you have to take your bike on holiday-wrap it up.
Leave bike spaces for those who need to use them.

By the way if anybody was inconvenienced when I stuffed my bike into a first class compartment at Tunbridge Wells Central in July 1980 at 7.30 in the morning-sorry.

So what you're saying is all leisure travel should be banned and the railway should go into a permanent "essential travel only" state?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Society also bars and actively prevents 16-21 year olds from getting to their places of work, education and fun. A deplorable public attitude will always ensure that this group will be ignored. This has an effect of depopulating rural areas of useful people.

How about - if you want to work in a town and have the facilities of one, live in one? Or accept that you might have to cycle to the station and lock your bike there and walk/bike hire/bus at the other end, or get a second hand Brompton?

In any case commuter times and leisure times don't heavily overlap.

It is public transport and as such it is available for all of the public for whatever reason they so choose.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There really isn't much of a solution to a reasonable number of bikes on buses- or trains for that matter! The solution has come in another form, folding bikes. Whilst not ideal for every situation, you can get them on in virtually unlimited numbers.
To muddy the waters further, we have a client who wants a regular contract using an electric coach. Like or loathe electric vehicles they are the way forward. We trialled one for a couple of weeks (there aren't many options on the market at the moment) but luggage space was problematic. Part of it is taken up with the wheelchair lift, the rest with batteries! If anything, luggage space will be getting worse before it gets better. Obviously, the more weight it carries too lowers the range. Interesting times ahead for RRB!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To muddy the waters further, we have a client who wants a regular contract using an electric coach. Like or loathe electric vehicles they are the way forward. We trialled one for a couple of weeks (there aren't many options on the market at the moment) but luggage space was problematic. Part of it is taken up with the wheelchair lift, the rest with batteries! If anything, luggage space will be getting worse before it gets better. Obviously, the more weight it carries too lowers the range. Interesting times ahead for RRB!

If the underfloor is going to need to be full of batteries, then they'll need to fit above-floor luggage space like you get on double-deck coaches, I guess, or raise the floor further like on Interdeck type coaches. Not for bicycles or RRB specifically, but National Express, Megabus and Flixbus will require this when they start using them because people on scheduled intercity coaches take luggage with them (they carry a very low number of daytrippers because of the long journey times, so pretty much everyone has a trolley bag).

I expect the "big three" won't switch to electric until this is sorted. There are I suppose luggage trailers, but those require a D+E licence and not all drivers will have that, also they create issues with reversing off bays at nose-in coach stations.

 

[jon0844]

By the way if anybody was inconvenienced when I stuffed my bike into a first class compartment at Tunbridge Wells Central in July 1980 at 7.30 in the morning-sorry.

That was you?

 

[unlevel42]

No -you are saying that.

The railways continue profit from the leisure business and carry thousands for that purpose.
The pursuits of the pleasure seekers and the capacity of trains them to carry them has changed.
Kayaks, hand gliders, skis etc. are not carried on trains.
The majority of proper sport cyclists prefer to travel in groups and are fit enough to travel from home.
Some cycle groups meet up at locations where they can park.
Many families festoon their vehicles with their bikes.
The train is not an alternative for any of these.
I actually live on the A57 going into the Peak District from Sheffield.

There are some who need to use a bike and a train for work, education or social activities. They live there. The train is an hourly(even two hourly) service on the Hope Valley line.

Is there not a duty for a subsidised local railway to meet the needs of the locals throughout the year rather than tired pleasure seekers?

Combining bike with bus/train/tram is a leisure activity. The best way to do it is with a folding bike.
Looking forward to catching the new X57 and whizzing down on my Brompton from Snake summit down to Glossop across to New Mills Central - Rock Tavern then Edale- the Rambler all for £6 70 Derbyshire Wayfarer.

That was you?

Yes - was it you who stuck their brolly through my spokes on the platform at Charing Cross?

 

[jon0844]

Yes - was it you who stuck their brolly through my spokes on the platform at Charing Cross?

Perhaps, but I was only six years old at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Combining bike with bus/train/tram is a leisure activity. The best way to do it is with a folding bike.
Looking forward to catching the new X57 and whizzing down on my Brompton from Snake summit down to Glossop across to New Mills Central - Rock Tavern then Edale- the Rambler all for £6 70 Derbyshire Wayfarer.

Brommies are a great idea, but not everyone can afford them (would you shut those who can only afford a sub-£100 "bike-shaped-object" out of taking the train out from Manchester to the Peak and having a nice ride round?) and some people (e.g. me) are too big for them even with the extended seatpost!

Most commuting involving rail is going to be "into town", and so few people need a bike at the other end (and those who do often either use a Brompton or just leave a cheap second hand one at the destination station). So the need to take a bike on the train to commute is generally fairly low.

More cycle hire facilities would help with the leisure stuff, that said. I recall there's one at Brockenhurst and there's definitely one at Windermere - perhaps one at Hope or Edale might do reasonably well?

There indeed isn't much call for big groups of road cyclists, so in reality with your regulation proposal you'd be banning something that doesn't really happen anyway, give or take people on their own (not a problem) and recovery of a bike with a serious mechanical failure (not that common where people have extremely expensive road bikes and tend to have them maintained professionally).

If there's a problem with too many turning up and people getting stranded, compulsory reservation solves that (because availability is so low, it is a very different argument to compulsory seat reservations), and I'd prefer it myself as it would allow me to be certain of being carried. I'm not sure there is any need for any more. Regarding replacement buses you'd know there was no option to be carried as you'd not be able to book, and if you were commuting you could book way in advance and so gain the priority over leisure travellers you seek. A small fee with part refunded for cancelling a reservation (say £2 for the reservation, £1 back for cancelling at least half an hour before departure, say) would make sure people didn't make speculative bookings (look at how successful charging just 10-20p for a carrier bag has been in reducing use of those).

 

[unlevel42]

How about - if you want to work in a town and have the facilities of one, live in one? Or accept that you might have to cycle to the station and lock your bike there and walk/bike hire/bus at the other end, or get a second hand Brompton?

In any case commuter times and leisure times don't heavily overlap.

It is public transport and as such it is available for all of the public for whatever reason they so choose.

The current 'new' trains on the Hope Valley line have less cycle space. They are either hourly or two hourly and been extremely busy in recent years because of the overcrowding on the TPE and EMR direct services. Cycle space for locals can be very limited.

Locals also travel on weekends.

Some PTEs and Local Authorities already heavily subsidise and treat outsiders unfairly-none more so than large urban conurbations.
So you can end up with an extreme example of a fare paying local Derbyshire 18 year being denied train travel by an 18 old with a full sized bike who gets free train travel in their home of London.

Cycle carrying on current trains in rural areas needs to be prioritized by need.

Bus to Fairholmes Car Park at Derwent Dam where there is an established cycle hire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current 'new' trains on the Hope Valley line have less cycle space. They are either hourly or two hourly and been extremely busy in recent years because of the overcrowding on the TPE and EMR direct services. Cycle space for locals can be very limited.

As a rule, Northern trains carry two bikes per train. You might be able to squeeze more on with a flexible guard, but the rule is two, so the new trains shouldn't make any difference.

Some PTEs and Local Authorities already heavily subsidise and treat outsiders unfairly-none more so than large urban conurbations.
So you can end up with an extreme example of a fare paying local Derbyshire 18 year being denied train travel by an 18 old with a full sized bike who gets free train travel in their home of London.

Eh?

Cycle carrying on current trains in rural areas needs to be prioritized by need.

Commuters generally need it least for the reasons I outlined.

Bus to Fairholmes Car Park at Derwent Dam where there is an established cycle hire.

You won't sell that to people. Perhaps the cycle hire place should get a deal with the railway for them to drive prebooked bikes over (perhaps in an electric van or something?) to meet trains?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Late to this thread but my personal approach for longer journeys is to always use the much cheaper coach service. That is/was mainly London to/from Cardiff. If I buy a more expensive train ticket I might well end up on a replacement coach that will be slower than the real and cheaper coach service as the replacement coach has to zig zag off the M4 to reach intermediate stations whereas the real coach service will stay on the M4 more. Even with road works the normal coach service will be better.

I have endured very long replacement coach services over the years. I do not see why the railway thinks they can still then charge for the premium product they are not providing when it is in fact inferior to the real coach service.

I once arrived back in London very very late from a curtailed Southbound service to Kings Cross and there were not even staff there to deal with people who had missed last trains. We were just dumped on the Euston road opposite the library near St Pancras Station. As experienced travellers we went looking in/around Kings Cross for staff. Very amateurish.

I have often wished for a rail diversion rather than having to change on to a bus/coach and then back onto a train. I would prefer that even if it took longer than the possible replacement coach.

A lot of buses just aren't equipped to carry bicycles.

Having said that, I can't help but agree in the sense that you're not being provided an equivalent service to what you've paid for. At the very least it is annoying, at worst it prevents you from making an essential journey to e.g. your workplace that you could reasonably expect to do by rail.

Given the complementary nature of bikes and trains as modes of transport, it is very frustrating, even moreso that provision for bikes on trains has reduced in many parts of the country.

A broader question I would like to pose; should fares for services replaced by buses be cheaper? I understand the railway is only really obliged to get you from A to B but as far as I'm concerned, I'm not getting the service I paid for.

I agree that any business cannot charge for a service it then does not provide.

The railway is not actually obliged to carry bicycles. It allows people to take bicycles on its trains but isn't obliged to. Therefore on occasions when a replacement road service has to be provided, it is not under obligation to accommodate conveyance for bicycles.

So bike reservations should not be allowed.

Probably easier if the railways just refused to carry all bikes.

Afraid so, unless the TOC in question wants to provide a suitable bus/coach when needed. This is beginning to be required for mobility impaired customers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that any business cannot charge for a service it then does not provide.

Though it isn't, generally, required to do any more than give a full refund if it can't. A business that is pro-customer (so not the railway, then ) will of course do more, but it is not generally required to.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Though it isn't, generally, required to do any more than give a full refund if it can't. A business that is pro-customer (so not the railway, then ) will of course do more, but it is not generally required to.

Good point. Yes it is about customer retention which may be an alien concept to some parts of the railway.

Your point has triggered a distant memory. I recall Virgin providing diversions from Birmingham to London Paddington (iirc) off the South WCML. They used long formations of Voyagers and that would be preferable. I would rather be delayed than be delayed and also have to change modes opnto a cramped road coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good point. Yes it is about customer retention which may be an alien concept to some parts of the railway.

Your point has triggered a distant memory. I recall Virgin providing diversions from Birmingham to London Paddington (iirc) off the South WCML. They used long formations of Voyagers and that would be preferable. I would rather be delayed than be delayed and also have to change modes opnto a cramped road coach.

15 car Voyagers (yes, really) - they went to Euston via a rather tortuous route.

 

[Peter Sarf]

15 car Voyagers (yes, really) - they went to Euston via a rather tortuous route.

Yes, I remember they were enormous formations. It was Euston then, thanks.

 

[biko]

Don't the Dutch tend to do quite a lot of cycling round urban areas on the dedicated cycle lanes? I can't see why they would ever want to take them on buses

Buses in the Netherlands don’t carry bikes as indeed you just cycle yourself. There is 1 exception: the bus through the Westerscheldetunnel. That tunnel doesn’t have a cycling path, is 6 km long and replaced a ferry so therefore bicycles can be taken on the regular service buses through the tunnel.

I can imagine someone wanting to take a bicycle on a regional bus (more than about 20 miles) in a region where there is no railway. But people just find other solutions I think.

And the other reason to take a bicycle on a bus would be a rail replacement bus. But that isn’t allowed in the Netherlands (although it does occasionally happen).

 

[maniacmartin]

Replying to a few seperate things that have been raised upthread:

Regarding american buses, I always thought that the reason the bicycles were carried on the front and not the rear is so the driver is aware when and who is loading them, and can keep an eye on them to stop someone just stealing one at a red traffic light.

I actually tried to do things the railway’s way in the past and bought a Brompton folding bicycle. It was a huge mistake. It was very heavy and cumbersome to manoeuvre around the station, difficult to ride and had more than its fair share of mechanical problems. The riding experience is very clunky and unpleasant, and as such I don’t think this style of bicycle can ever be a solution.

I have been to the Netherlands and seem the bicycle parking there, but I have my doubts whether something like that would work here. I think unless the parking was properly secured and staffed, someone would come and steal your cycle, or your lights, wheels, or whatever wasn’t bolted down. It seems to be fair game in the UK that your bicycle components will get stolen, which is a huge factor in me cycling less, because it is fiddly and time consuming to remove GPS, lights etc and lock frame and both wheels. Maybe the dutch are just more honest?

Now, contrary to what I said before about only taking my bicycle by car and never by train, I decided to give it another go this weekend. I deliberately travelled by DOO services where I knew I wouldn’t have anyone denying me access and it worked out pretty well. There were more bicycles than allowed on board, but all the passengers shuffled things around and made it work. This was an outbound journey (returning a different day) and I had all of my luggage in panniers as I was using the bicycle for the ”final mile” (50 miles - thanks Beeching cuts) - something that wouldn’t work too well with cycle hire. I guess because it wasn’t a commute and I didn’t live there, I shouldn’t have been able to take my bicycle!? That seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Robertj21a]

Buses in the Netherlands don’t carry bikes as indeed you just cycle yourself. There is 1 exception: the bus through the Westerscheldetunnel. That tunnel doesn’t have a cycling path, is 6 km long and replaced a ferry so therefore bicycles can be taken on the regular service buses through the tunnel.

I can imagine someone wanting to take a bicycle on a regional bus (more than about 20 miles) in a region where there is no railway. But people just find other solutions I think.

And the other reason to take a bicycle on a bus would be a rail replacement bus. But that isn’t allowed in the Netherlands (although it does occasionally happen).

Presumably, the Dutch never get tired enough to need a bus ride back, so perhaps that's what we should be doing - no bike facilities whatsoever, you ride your bike out and then ride it back again.
Problem solved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably, the Dutch never get tired enough to need a bus ride back, so perhaps that's what we should be doing - no bike facilities whatsoever, you ride your bike out and then ride it back again.
Problem solved.

I'm assuming the dense railway network of the Netherlands somewhat escaped your attention?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Presumably, the Dutch never get tired enough to need a bus ride back, so perhaps that's what we should be doing - no bike facilities whatsoever, you ride your bike out and then ride it back again.
Problem solved.

I'm assuming the dense railway network of the Netherlands somewhat escaped your attention?

It would also work in the UK if only people would let me bulldoze all those lumpy hills out of the way .

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm assuming the dense railway network of the Netherlands somewhat escaped your attention?

We also have a dense railway network across much of England - or have we now moved the goalposts so that we're only talking about bikes on buses in outlying rural areas?