• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Surfers call on GWR to review board-on-trains ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

gallafent

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
517
[Mods: posted in rolling stock because it relates to the change from HSTs to IETs, please do move to a different forum if you think this isn't the right place!]

It looks as if there's yet another reason for one group of people that would otherwise be keen rail users to switch to the car. The lack of luggage storage space on the IETs and other Hitachi GWR rolling stock, when compared to the HSTs they replaced, means that people can no longer travel by train with surfboards. Since these were introduced, they have felt to me like mid-density outer surburban commuter trains, and the lack of facilities (namely in this case facilities for the carriage of larger luggage, but also the absence of a buffet car, and the uncomfortable seats ;) ) for people travelling longer distances for longer stays (as opposed to intra-day travel etc.) have been sacrificed. Maybe it's just a case of it being impossible for a single train to be ideal for the various roles it has to fulfil (it's strongly arguably better for services like that I use most, viz Oxford <-> London expresses, since it has more seats, more space at each seat to use the computer, and faster acceleration), but worse for the holiday traffic …

Realistically, before this year, that was probably the pragmatic thing to do for a fleet that has to cover these very different use-cases. Perhaps some changes to the internal fit-out to redress the balance slightly in favour of long distance / holiday traffic might be considered now, in the light of the substantial reduction in commuter traffic.


Surfers are calling on Great Western Railway to review its policy banning surfboards on trains.
It comes after one surfer said police were called when he was told to leave a train travelling from London to Bristol because he had a board with him.
Jamie Monson said the policy was “crazy”, especially when rail travel is being encouraged.
GWR changed its policy early last year stating surfboards were not be allowed on its intercity express trains.
The company said the new trains no longer had space behind the engine, where boards had previously been stored, to enable them to provide extra seating.
[…]
A spokesman for GWR said: “We cannot take surfboards on long-distance trains because there is no feasible, safe storage space on board.
“Surfboards can be taken on our Night Riviera sleeper service from London to Penzance, which has different seating demands and space set aside for storage. We also continue to carry surfboards on local stopping services.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,786
Location
West Riding
This is something that kicked off due to a twitter debate after someone was removed from a GWR service at Paddington by the train manager and BTP (why it's a police matter I don't know).

There are multiple contradictions. 50 people could board a single 153 with a surfboard each and that is okay, but 1 person can't board a much longer train with a surfboard. Due to social distancing there is of course more room than ever on board trains for storing such items and IEP carriages are bigger than the ones they replaced.

Equally this is effectively a de facto ban, because how are you supposed to get to the branchlines where surfboards are allowed to be conveyed, if you can't carry them on the majority of intercity services to reach the branchlines in the first place?

The NRCT state that TOC's can use discretion as to whether they accept surfboards or not, but it implies that that's a TOC level decision, not rolling stock specific; ie you either convey surfboards or you don't. The GWR spokesperson went quiet after I mentioned this.

Yes, there is guidance on the GWR website, but surely that doesn't overide the NRCT.
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
I've always found this one ridiculous. It was a well-known flow before the trains were ordered, and the 'solution' that surfers should take the sleeper is something that GWR should be ashamed of. Its another thing that makes you look at that second galley on a 2x5 car and think that there could have been more joined-up thinking!

Would they fit the bicycle cupboards? If so, could they be booked as if they were a bicycle?
They're a very different shape to a bike, so it seems unlikely they would fit without a modification, but you would have thought that an adaption could be made
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
Trouble is the bike spaces are already hugely over subscribed.
Sadly the 80x train just doesn't cut it when it comes to provision for the likes of surf boards, bikes or additional luggage at busy times
Oh for the days of HSTs when the power cars where used for a multitude of luggage.....
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
London, UK
This is something that kicked off due to a twitter debate after someone was removed from a GWR service at Paddington by the train manager and BTP (why it's a police matter I don't know).

People refusing to leave the train when asked by the guard is usually a police matter.

Trouble is the bike spaces are already hugely over subscribed.
Sadly the 80x train just doesn't cut it when it comes to provision for the likes of surf boards, bikes or additional luggage at busy times
Oh for the days of HSTs when the power cars where used for a multitude of luggage.....

The luggage space only really ever existed because it was a huge empty area not fit for passengers. I feel there would be an equal riot if passengers were jammed into the vestibules while a large open space down the end existed in case someone had a surfboard.
 

221129

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
6,520
Location
Sunny Scotland
Yes, there is guidance on the GWR website, but surely that doesn't overide the NRCT.
The NRCoT say its TOC discretion. So there is no overriding of the NRCoT. It is made clear that GWR do not accept surfboards on certain trains. Same as other TOCs.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Could Hitachi manufacture a compatible luggage van that could be marshaled in between two IET units when needed?

No doubt they *could*. How much it would cost and the operational headaches it would cause on the other hand....

Would've thought with current social distancing some window seats would be suitable for surfboard storage...
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Trouble is the bike spaces are already hugely over subscribed.
Sadly the 80x train just doesn't cut it when it comes to provision for the likes of surf boards, bikes or additional luggage at busy times
Oh for the days of HSTs when the power cars where used for a multitude of luggage.....

I fully agree. Luggage space has always been one of the IEP / IETs biggest failings, from the outset. What's more disappointing is that the 802s were ordered by FG, but of course no doubt even luggage space would have been dictated to them by the beloved DfT. A shame for a unit designed to run to the holiday resorts of the South West.

I would also say LNER have been lucky this year - having seen several HSTs & 91 hauled sets in Edinburgh Waverley last summer fully wedged with both TGS and Power Car Van Spaces being fully utilised. Fortunately LNER have admitted the luggage inadequacy and are working to address this. Something it would be nice to see GW do.


The luggage space only really ever existed because it was a huge empty area not fit for passengers. I feel there would be an equal riot if passengers were jammed into the vestibules while a large open space down the end existed in case someone had a surfboard.

Except for the TGS Space.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I fully agree. Luggage space has always been one of the IEP / IETs biggest failings, from the outset. What's more disappointing is that the 802s were ordered by FG, but of course no doubt even luggage space would have been dictated to them by the beloved DfT. A shame for a unit designed to run to the holiday resorts of the South West.

Or possibly a case of GWR needing to pay Hitachi money specifically to change to pre-existing IET internal design.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Bicycles don't even fit the bicycle cupboards on IETs.

I hate those upright designs, both for security reasons (you are effectively leaving your luggage or bike by the door and will be away from when sat in the saloon) and for the reduction in numbers they can take. I'm also not a fan of them being considered "Multi Use", meaning that luggage can be stored in there if there is no bike at the time. But if a bike is added during the journey while luggage is stored in there, then becomes an issue...
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
The luggage space only really ever existed because it was a huge empty area not fit for passengers. I feel there would be an equal riot if passengers were jammed into the vestibules while a large open space down the end existed in case someone had a surfboard.
GWR's IETs do, of course, have a large unused space down the end.

The kitchen.

It's a colossal waste of space on all but a few services, and why the five-car units, in particular, have it continues to baffle me. You could fit a whole bunch of surfboards and bikes in there with no adverse impact on passengers whatsoever.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
No doubt they *could*. How much it would cost and the operational headaches it would cause on the other hand....

Would've thought with current social distancing some window seats would be suitable for surfboard storage...

To be fair I suppose they could earmark say 5 rows of seats on top of which they could be stacked with some sort of restraint, in summer only.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Or possibly a case of GWR needing to pay Hitachi money specifically to change to pre-existing IET internal design.

Maybe so, but if the designs are supposed to be modular. It is well known that the DfT would only approve the 802 fleet if they were ordered to be the same as the 800 fleet. It wouldn't surprise me if any alterations for the West Country market were chosen to be ignored. Being conventionally leased, it would have been the leasing co paying for any design alterations anyway.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
GWR of course provide the service from London to Newquay, the UK surfing centre.

In the way of some bus companies, who provide a bus service to the shopping centre but then find it an inconvenience when their passengers actually wish to return holding all their shopping, it seems that GWR have completely failed to see WHY it is that people travel on their services.

And of course, now that TOCs are all just being paid operating costs plus a margin, it's open house on all the aspects of revenue retention that the onetime commercial teams, who must now feel sidelined, used to demand of the operators, but the latter found inconvenient. Real "We are the Masters now" stuff.
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
It's a colossal waste of space on all but a few services, and why the five-car units, in particular, have it continues to baffle me. You could fit a whole bunch of surfboards and bikes in there with no adverse impact on passengers whatsoever.

Well, if the DfT will specify trains without a clear picture of what the operator intends to do in terms of onboard catering these things will happen...
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I hate those upright designs, both for security reasons (you are effectively leaving your luggage or bike by the door and will be away from when sat in the saloon) and for the reduction in numbers they can take. I'm also not a fan of them being considered "Multi Use", meaning that luggage can be stored in there if there is no bike at the time. But if a bike is added during the journey while luggage is stored in there, then becomes an issue...

The bike spaces are the only decent spaces to store some folded prams as well.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
GWR of course provide the service from London to Newquay, the UK surfing centre.

In the way of some bus companies, who provide a bus service to the shopping centre but then find it an inconvenience when their passengers actually wish to return holding all their shopping, it seems that GWR have completely failed to see WHY it is that people travel on their services.

And of course, now that TOCs are all just being paid operating costs plus a margin, it's open house on all the aspects of revenue retention that the onetime commercial teams, who must now feel sidelined, used to demand of the operators, but the latter found inconvenient.

It's funny that you mention the bus companies in this - Go North East's new X-Lines Fleet for Consett etc includes space for 2 bikes on each service in addition to the usual space for wheelchairs / prams etc. So it shows that with the right management, knowing your market / what your passengers may bring on your transport can be done.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I do like how GWR say "well you can take them on the sleeper" as if a train to Penzance (where the surf is poor) is a substitute. That would be like an airline banning snowboards on flights to Innsbruck, and when people complain responding with "You can take them on our flights to Berlin though". :rolleyes:
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I do like how GWR say "well you can take them on the sleeper" as if a train to Penzance (where the surf is poor) is a substitute. That would be like an airline banning snowboards on flights to Innsbruck, and when people complain responding with "You can take them on our flights to Berlin though". :rolleyes:

Erm, the Sleeper serves all the same mainline stations through Cornwall as the 80x do.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
How would that work?
Unit+van+Unit I assume. Would have to run all day like that even supposing platforms could take 11 vehicles.

Back in the day FGW used to add an extra TGS to the set working the morning Padd-Newquay purely for luggage space. The extra vehicle would go in at St Philip’s Marsh overnight and the 2+9 set would work Bristol-Padd-Newquay-Padd-Bristol.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
I hate those upright designs, both for security reasons (you are effectively leaving your luggage or bike by the door and will be away from when sat in the saloon) and for the reduction in numbers they can take. I'm also not a fan of them being considered "Multi Use", meaning that luggage can be stored in there if there is no bike at the time. But if a bike is added during the journey while luggage is stored in there, then becomes an issue...

Yep. Last time I took my bike on an IET (the other week), another passenger came along mid-journey and put her bike next to mine.

Which would be fine. Except when I got to extricate my bike... it was firmly wedged against the other one. The pedals had locked together. The spaces are so narrow that this is almost inevitable for anything apart from super-narrow road bikes - i.e. the 70% of bikes that are hybrids, MTBs, and the like.

It took five minutes to extricate my bike. Fortunately I have a sufficient distrust of those spaces that I'd left plenty of time to do it before my stop, but I can well imagine the design of these cupboards making a non-negligible contribution to delay minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top