Issues with folding bicycles on European trains?

Crossing London is OK if you use the cycle routes - they tend to go along
the quieter streets. A map can be ordered (free) from www.tfl.gov.uk

Also, use the bus lanes (this is legal) - they tend to be quieter, but be
prepared for bus drivers who will drive close behind and try to intimidate
you out of the way (just ignore them....they will drop back after the next
bus stop!)

"Peter File" wrote in message
...
www.nationalrail.co.uk will get you links to all the UK rail companies,
each
of which has its own policies about bicycles (Why does a country the
size
of
the UK need 30 odd rail companies?). Most rail companies seem to treat a
folding bike in a case the way they would treat any comparably sized
suitcase, it's the fully assembled, full sized bicycles that become
troublesome. My own (very limited) experience taking a fully loaded
tourer
on trains in the UK was not bad, other regulars on this NG seem to have
a
limitless supply of horror stories.

I've had OK experiences with just turning up. The major problem is
crossing
London. It takes some nerve to cycle across London if your not used to
London drivers.

Originally posted by Hedgehog Crossing London is OK if you use the
cycle routes - they tend to go along the quieter streets. A map can be
ordered (free) from www.tfl.gov.uk

From RACV's RoyalAuto magazine:

"Traffic in central London averages 4.6km/h, according to a study.
Roadworks and traffic calming schemes have reduced speeds to as low as
2.5km/h on some routes"

hippy "wow"



--

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:06:08 +0100, Hedgehog wrote:

Crossing London is OK if you use the cycle routes - they tend to go along
the quieter streets. A map can be ordered (free) from www.tfl.gov.uk

Quick bit of Googling on the station link proposal turns up:
http://www.blagged.pwp.blueyonder.co.../statcirc.html

Peter File wrote:
someone else wrote:
(Why does a country the size of the UK need 30 odd rail companies?)

We don't, it's fallout from privatisation, which has doubled subsidy and
made no real improvements. The experience can largely be summarised by the
observation that in the days of state-owned British Rail, railway food was
cheap and nasty; now it's expensive and nasty.

I've had OK experiences with just turning up. The major problem is crossing
London. It takes some nerve to cycle across London if your not used to
London drivers.

Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.
--
David Damerell flcl?

David Damerell wrote in message ...
cut

Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.

A bit of a contradiction in terms here. The shallow underground lines
are not "tube", but of cut-and-cover construction. It is the deep
lines that are bored (and hence tubes) where bikes are banned due to
possible problems on the escalators.

I know many people refer to the whole of London Underground somewhat
loosely as "the tube", but your "surface tube" is too odd a
juxtaposition to pass without comment.

Your information about bike carrying regulations is, however,
accurate.

Andrew Webster

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:30:01 +0000, hippy wrote:

From RACV's RoyalAuto magazine:

"Traffic in central London averages 4.6km/h, according to a study.
Roadworks and traffic calming schemes have reduced speeds to as low as
2.5km/h on some routes"

Yeah, but it's probably like Sydney:

Sit at lights for 1 minute, drive 90km/h over 10 seconds
to the next set... still gives you a low average speed, but
don't make it safe.

I think alot of people see 'traffic calming' devices as
some sort of auto-obsticle-course to be taken as fast
as possible.

The only reall traffic calmer has a blue light on top.

-kt

Andrew Webster wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.
A bit of a contradiction in terms here. The shallow underground lines
are not "tube", but of cut-and-cover construction.

I know that (although I realise other rbt readers may not); indeed,
outside central London (as you know) the surface lines are above the
surface in many places.

_But_ it's all the big-T Tube even where it's not a small-t tube; just as
it is the big-U Underground even when it is not little-u underground.
--
David Damerell flcl?

David Damerell wrote in message ...
Andrew Webster wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.
A bit of a contradiction in terms here. The shallow underground lines
are not "tube", but of cut-and-cover construction.

I know that (although I realise other rbt readers may not); indeed,
outside central London (as you know) the surface lines are above the
surface in many places.

_But_ it's all the big-T Tube even where it's not a small-t tube; just as
it is the big-U Underground even when it is not little-u underground.

You are right, the capitalisation makes all the difference!

Andrew Webster

David Damerell wrote in message ...
Andrew Webster wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.
A bit of a contradiction in terms here. The shallow underground lines
are not "tube", but of cut-and-cover construction.

I know that (although I realise other rbt readers may not); indeed,
outside central London (as you know) the surface lines are above the
surface in many places.

_But_ it's all the big-T Tube even where it's not a small-t tube; just as
it is the big-U Underground even when it is not little-u underground.

I'll quote from http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/lu-summary.htm just
to support my argument...

The name "tube" appeared early in the 20th century when the deep level
lines first opened with their small diameter tunnels. It is now often
used (incorrectly) by the general public to mean any Underground line.
"I'll take the Tube" is an expression commonly heard in London. The
sub surface lines are the Circle, District, East London, Hammersmith &
City and Metropolitan Lines. Only the others, the Bakerloo, Central,
Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria and Waterloo & City Lines are
true tube lines.


....but clearly you are right here, the capitalisation makes all the
difference!

Andrew Webster

"Andrew Webster" wrote in message
om...
David Damerell wrote in message
...
Andrew Webster wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Bear in mind that you may use the surface Tube lines outside the rush
hour
with an unfolded bike; most of the major railway terminuses are on or
within walking distance of the Circle Line.
A bit of a contradiction in terms here. The shallow underground lines
are not "tube", but of cut-and-cover construction.

I know that (although I realise other rbt readers may not); indeed,
outside central London (as you know) the surface lines are above the
surface in many places.

_But_ it's all the big-T Tube even where it's not a small-t tube; just
as
it is the big-U Underground even when it is not little-u underground.

I'll quote from http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/lu-summary.htm just
to support my argument...

The name "tube" appeared early in the 20th century when the deep level
lines first opened with their small diameter tunnels. It is now often
used (incorrectly) by the general public to mean any Underground line.

Common useage defines what is 'incorrect'. In this case, you are :-)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com