What happens when cycle races wait for trains?

Kayt · Post by **Kayt** » 9 Apr 2007, 7:29pm

I was watching a "well-known" sports channel yesterday and one of the short film clips they showed, just before the Tour of Flanders, included the Peloton waiting for a train. :lol:

(No, not a train in the Peloton.)This looked like it was an excerpt from a race last year. Does anyone know what happens about calculating the cyclists finishing times when this happens? While waiting for the locomotive and carriages to pass, the cyclists formed a group by the gates of the level crossing. What happens if the leaders have been caught, or if people end up ten minutes late through no fault of their own?

I am interested in knowing the answer because I will be combining travelling by train and following the Tour of Switzerland in June.

frank · Post by **frank** » 9 Apr 2007, 9:27pm

Ibelieve This was the ruling at the tour de france last year

IF the leader or leaders are caught at a level crossing due to a train ,the peleton are not allowed to start racing until the leaders have regained they lead at the time of stopping,

If the leaders are not caught and the lead is just narrowed then the race carries on as normal.

If the leaders get through the crossing and the peleton gets held up waiting for the train then its hard luck for the peleton.

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 9 Apr 2007, 9:46pm

This was the sort of thing I used to swat up avidly on in the days of Jock Wadley and Coureur "The magazine for the sporting cyclist.

In those days 1950s/ 60s, there were local rules in each country. This was complicated by the fact that in those days although you were really only talking about northern France/ Belgium many Flemish speaking Belgian riders would not even acknowledge the existence of the French language and, of course, some races such as Paris - Brussels and the Tour crossed the border. So the commissaires often didn't know which rules they were enforcing and didn't always try very hard when they did; Belgian riders only listened when it suited them.

One thing that I believe has been tightened up on is riders dodging under the barrier or ignoring signals where there is no barrier. You used to see pics of riders climbing between or even under trucks if a long goods train stopped across a crossing.

I am not such an avid follower as I used to be but I think Frank is more or less correct and it often still leads to all-round chaos.

Greg · Post by **Greg** » 10 Apr 2007, 5:38pm

Last year, Leif Hoste, Peter van Petegem and Vladimir Gusev rode through a closed level crossing on the Paris-Roubaix and got disqualified for it. May this be the race you're talking about?

Kayt · Post by **Kayt** » 10 Apr 2007, 8:31pm

Thank you to the people who have very kindly and very promptly replied to my query. It was extremely helpful. Following on from that, I have another question.

If a rider is a long way back from the leaders (and the peloton) and is then delayed at a level crossing to the extent that he or she takes longer than the "allowed" time and misses the cut-off, does common-sense prevail and the delayed time get taken off their over-all time for that stage?

I am not sure which race was in the excerpt I saw. It was only a very short piece just before transmission of live coverage of the Tour of Flanders.

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 10 Apr 2007, 9:48pm

Kayt

The Tour of Flanders is a one day race.

Rules for elmination in stage races are something decided by the organisers, rather than the UCI or national federations (although the actual elimination decisions are made by the race officials.). There is always a degree of discretion, usually applied if half the field would otherwise be eliminated or only occasionally in deserving cases.

A well-known hardship case with somebody close to many of our hearts involved Paul Sherwin. He punctured in the TdF early in a stage when things might normally have been going slow but something caused a speed-up and he spent the rest of the day chasing, finishing ages outside the limit. He was reinstated for his courage, and I think also that in those days a British rider was still a publicity + for the organisers. Also PS was something of a shop steward for the riders.

Further back in history, Brian Robinson and Shay Elliott were involved in another case. In a 1959 pyrenees stage when the Tour was still contested by national teams, Brian Robinson, finished 4th (out of 4) in an important breakaway and moved up to 9th on GC. The following day he contracted stomach illness (I can't spell dire wotsit :shock:

) and he spent the whole day being taken short at the roadside. Shay Elliot, a team-mate from Eire (the French think everywhere over here is in England) pushed him to the finish. Both were initially eliminated until Sauveur Ducazeaux (the French manager of UK team) pointed out that anyone in top 10 of GC could not be eliminated. BR was reinstated and went on to win a later 'promenade' stage by 20 minutes+. Poor old loyal SE stayed eliminated.

So the answer to your Q is 'It all depends.'

Kayt · Post by **Kayt** » 20 Apr 2007, 8:33pm

Thank you to Thirdcrank for your very detailed reply to my question.
How do you manage to remember all these details? Is it all memory or do you have a index system either on a computer or elsewhere?

Now that I have these answers, if the train (locomotive and carridges) on which I am travelling in Switzerland passes through a level crossing with Tour de Suisse cyclists waiting, I shall know the answer to my original question. Thank you.

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 20 Apr 2007, 8:39pm

Kayt

It is something to do with the difference between youth and old age. There was a time when I could have told you anything about cycling trivia. Now I cannot remember what we are talking about. :cry:

(I was hoping your next question would be, why do they enforce time limits in stage races. :lol:

)

Mike Rodgers · Post by **Mike Rodgers** » 21 Apr 2007, 9:43am

Oh bu**er, TC, I can't resist. Why do they?

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 22 Apr 2007, 9:58pm

Mike R

I am sure you know why, but if Kayt is still reading....

Apart from weeding out no-hopers (unlikely anyway in modern bike racing) it is to prevent riders who have no interest in GC taking it easy on difficult stages - usually the mountains - to conserve energy for the times when they might win stages or points for the green jersey.

In reality, it is often only the lone straggler who gets the chop, the rest of the time it is something of a game of bluff between the organisers and the so-called sprinters' bus. If a big group misses the cut-off, there is nearly always an excuse to let them back in because the organisers don't want to lose half the field.

Usually, this doesn't affect things too much but three or four years ago (and I no longer have all the details in my head for such recent stuff :oops:

) Stuart O'Grady (recent winner of Paris Roubaix) was in a breakaway on a flattish stage where the whole bunch, including Lance Artmstrong the eventual overall winner, finished outside the limit. Armstrong knew he could get a week back on O'Grady if necessary so he didn't bother to chase, and nobody else did either. Eric Zabel, eventual Green Jersey winner just shadowed LA. O'Grady was beaten by EZ for the Green Jersey by a small margin and nobody seemed to find that unfair.

There is, of course, considerable kudos for the rider who finishes last overall in the TdF and it is difficult to win the 'lanterne rouge' position. In 1955, Tony Hoare, apart from Brian Robinson the only member of the pioneering UK team to finish, achieved this feat.

Kayt · Post by **Kayt** » 24 Apr 2007, 8:56pm

Yes, Thirdcrank, I am still reading this. It is very interesting reading the answers in such great detail.

I am surprised, however, that people have been able to resist the temptation for witticisms on the combined subject of trains and cycle races. Is it true or just a rumour that, in one of the early Tours de France, a cyclist took a train journey to avoid most of one stage? If it was one of the possible leaders, did they take their train with them on the train? You would then have to track the train on the train on the track. :lol:

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 24 Apr 2007, 11:33pm

Kayt

Glad to hear you are still reading. (Regular readers of my ramblings know that I learned to ride a bike in 1958 and started work on 14 July 1967, the day after the death of Tom Simpson so that is the era of most of my trivia.)

I don't know anything really about cheating in early Tours. It is true to say the stages were very long - they covered the same sort of distance overall as the mdern race but only in half a dozen stages - so it was much more of an individual endurance effort. As well as signing on at start and finish controls, which persist to this day, riders had to sign at interim controls and there were also secret checks along the route to prevent what you suggest.

The only other bit of early bike race/railway trivia that I can think of is that I have heard it from Duffers on Eurosport that the route for Liège - Bastogne - Liège (and I do love doing those accents) which began in 1896 and is the oldest classic race and so known as 'La Doyenne' was arranged so that the officials could do the start, take a train to the turn at Bastogne and then a train back to the finish.