Do rail companies need to change their bike policies?

Do you ever get the feeling you’re not wanted?

I recently took a trip to Sheffield from my home in York. My plan was to travel by train and cycle at each end.

Tickets purchased, I tweeted CrossCountry for a bike reservation, adding that I’m unable to use a vertical hanging hook and asking whether alternative storage would be available. The answer was no. As a follow-up came the unexpectedly hostile: “You’ll need to find a way of hanging it up yourself, or seek help in doing so. Otherwise, it doesn’t come onboard.”

In theory, vertical storage allows for two bicycles to be stored upright, tucked into a narrow cupboard, front wheels hung on ceiling hooks. The space is minimal, allowing train operators to claim cycle storage is provided, whilse stretching the technical definition to its absolute limit.

The fact so few bicycles are narrow or light enough to fit into this crevice seems of minor concern to the rail companies. That still fewer people are physically capable of wrestling them in appears of even less interest.

But in choosing to provide vertical storage as the only option, these companies have made a decision that disproportionately puts female cyclists and those with mobility issues at a huge disadvantage. It may not have been a deliberate choice but this, nonetheless, is the end result.

Women are on average shorter and have less upper body strength than men: anything requiring a heavy object to be hoisted six foot in the air is intended for use by the average (fit, non-disabled) man, and not the average person. Cycling is my primary mode of transportation, but with weakness in both wrists, I can’t lift my bike without support.

As a newly single woman on an independence kick, it was quite an indignity to feel I required male assistance in order to assert said independence.

Cue my impotent rage, to which CrossCountry responded that it hears “very few complaints along these lines”. Which was interesting, because the company and I then received a barrage of tweets from all manner of passengers facing this very issue.

CrossCountry is not the only rail company to install this parody of cycle storage. ScotRail, Great Western, Virgin and others have all introduced it and the rest are following suit.

Each of LNER’s new, much-touted Azuma trains have four hooks in two cupboards, which the operator describes as “plenty of bike storage”. With greater passenger numbers and pressure from above to increase capacity still further, something’s got to give, and that something is adequate, accessible cycle storage.

But in order to tackle the climate crisis and encourage sustainable journeys, we need to make the natural combination of rail and cycle an easy, accessible option for everyone who could be cycling, and not simply those who currently do.

The UK’s gender split of cyclists is heavily skewed towards men, with our infrastructure fundamentally unattractive to women. It’s ironic, given the bicycle was once a historical symbol of female empowerment and independence.

Engineers and CEOs don’t actively calculate how best to exclude women, but they don’t work out how to encourage them. If female cyclists – particularly those traveling alone – find it harder to load their bicycles on to trains then many simply won’t bother cycling at all. Some won’t make the journey. Others will drive instead.

The same can be said for disabled cyclists.

Many disabled and elderly people find it easier to cycle than walk, but provision such as this makes no allowance for handbikes, trikes, recumbents or e-bikes.

CrossCountry’s cycle policy states: “As space is limited, we are unable to convey tandems, tricycles … or motorised bikes on any of our trains.” No exceptions are mentioned.

Let’s be clear: vertical cycle storage is a disaster for everybody. It carries fewer bikes, allows for limited styles and sizes, is a struggle for even the most capable, stops families travelling together and actively discourages sustainable journeys. Through my involvement with the York Cycle Campaign, I’m aware of how many engineers, cycling bodies, individuals and organisations warned the rail companies against it. Every cyclist I’ve heard from considers it either a hindrance or a flat-out barrier.

Nonetheless, as ever, it’s the marginalised groups who suffer the most. My plan is to write to ministers at relevant government departments to see what they have to say.

Peter Walker adds:

After seeing Robyn’s tweets, I asked on Twitter about other people’s experiences, and the response was overwhelming. Wherever vertical cycle storage is in place, people said, the cupboards are either far too small for many bikes, difficult for people to hang their bikes in, or full of rubbish, baggage or both. Here are a few examples.

I also sought responses from the three rail companies that came up most often: CrossCountry, which runs long-distance services around the UK; GWR, which operates to Wales, and the west and south-west of England; and LNER, which operates the main East Coast franchise. I particularly sought information on what work they had done to ensure vertical bike storage was accessible.

The responses were long, and mixed – extracts of them are below. But the key seemed to be this: most companies said they receive few complaints. Perhaps UK cyclists are inured to awful treatment on trains? But perhaps that’s the lesson – don’t just mention it on Twitter, let the rail company know.

The main rationale given is quite depressing. Rail services are busy, space is limited, and vertical is the best way to fulfil the contractual obligation to carry some bikes without taking up much room.

But here are edited extracts of what they had to say:

CrossCountry

The company says it is “fully compliant with the committed obligations” to carry bikes, and on carrying disabled people. It went on:

GWR

LNER