Bikes on trains

[maximus meridius]

I'm on the Lancaster to Carlisle bone shaker via Barrow. Two carriages, air conditioning consists of tilt windows. Disabled area one end and cycles the other. Just seem two sets of families with prams go right to the other end of the train, get on them work their way through the train to leave their prams in the cycle area. Now there's a bike with no space in the bike area to secure his bike.

This makes me think that what do you do when there's poor provision for competing special interest groups on trains. I mean cyclists, disabled and parents with prams and babies.

Having been a parent I know how stressful it is with a pram and baby on a train that doesn't cater for you. I also know that as a cyclist I am also lowest priority which is why I got a folding bike.

They can't kick me off for having a folded Brompton. Well not without a good cause for complaint and possibly BTP lol!

Not serious about BTP as family have been rail workers on the trains so I know how much they are put upon by customers and things outside their control.

My question is should they now have disabled, cycles and prams areas on modern trains? Are they discriminating against let's be honest mostly mothers?

Also, can all train workers sort out the luggage in cycle bays? I've rarely seen the guard enforcing luggage into racks so cycles can get on. Mostly cyclists end up hovering in the doorways when the cycle area is full of luggage

Yes, it's a mess.

I would be very careful grouping people with different characteristics together. Just because some people are identifiable as part of a "group" - cyclists (actually people who cycle), parents, or wheelchair users (hint, not all disabled people use a wheelchair) - does not mean those groups are comparable, in any sort of taxonomic way.

For one thing it starts to legitimise the notion of inherent "rights" based purely on membership of a particular group. This can be a dangerous path to go down. For instance the "right" of certain people not to feel offended because of their membership of a particular religious "group".

In comparing the "groups" it is clear they are not comparable in certain ways, or perhaps even at all, except that they can be identified as "groups". I don't suppose anybody chooses to be disabled. People do however choose to have children, and choose to cycle. Whether we encourage those choices, or make allowances for them, or make the choice less onerous, is a different matter. So membership of a "group" is different if it is a matter of choice. Hence my example above - many members of religious "groups" will talk as though they have no choice in the matter.

Language matters, as it guides thought. So could I gently guide you towards considering your use of language regarding disabled people - https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... disability

[Tangled Metal]

Disabled is still the terminology of various organisations of which the TOC concerned is one. I used the term as they use it for wheelchair users and I guess by association ppl with lower mobility.

Grouping train users by certain additional needs, many of which are shared with other groups is practical. Wheelchair users often need help getting on and off trains so it makes sense to have them located in an identified part of the train. IMHO and IME parents with a pram and baby (toddler too up until they're walking steadily) have similar accessibility needs even though they don't get that assistance. Wheelchair users, pram users and cycle users need space on the train for sitting or storing pram or cycle. I also think pram and cycle users need to be able to sit near or within sight if their equipment for security. Wheelchair users might need additional seating for carers if they need them

Imho public transport should be accessible to all who want to use them. I've seen this done on the continental European trains. I've had train staff helping us onto trains with bikes, panniers and young child also on bikes. I've seen bike carriages on even small, local routes. Brittany had double dockers with the lower floors with inwards facing sears that all flipped up for bikes,, 25 per carriage maximum though so limitations apply. Trains that have openings that lower to allow wheelchair users on easily. Loads of excellent provisions for all three of the groups I mentioned in France, Belgium and Netherlands. If ppl don't identify as a specific user group with the specific needs of that group I doubt we'll improve our lot with the various train companies to hopefully catch up with other European countries.

[maximus meridius]

Disabled is still the terminology of various organisations of which the TOC concerned is one. I used the term as they use it for wheelchair users and I guess by association ppl with lower mobility.

Sure. I think you may have missed the slightly subtle distinction in the use of the word "disabled", but no matter.

Grouping train users by certain additional needs, many of which are shared with other groups is practical.

Yes, you're correct, I see your point.

[Tangled Metal]

Nope! I know the subtle significance of disabled as technically I believe I could have the more subtle understanding applied to me. On two counts at least. However, I was only applying the disabled term to apply to the subset which train companies offer accommodations for due to mobility issues such as wheelchair users for whom they define fixed space for.

[mjr]

We pay for tickets for the person. We don't pay for the bike. And I'm more than happy to pay for the bike, if I get a better service. Which is what I said. And I've just said it again. And much like the southern preacher, I'll say it again. And perhaps one day the simple point will sink in.

But will you do better than the southern preacher and answer the obvious question I'm pretty sure was already asked? In this case: if we paid for bikes, do you think people should pay for other large luggage?

[maximus meridius]

We pay for tickets for the person. We don't pay for the bike. And I'm more than happy to pay for the bike, if I get a better service. Which is what I said. And I've just said it again. And much like the southern preacher, I'll say it again. And perhaps one day the simple point will sink in.

But will you do better than the southern preacher and answer the obvious question I'm pretty sure was already asked? In this case: if we paid for bikes, do you think people should pay for other large luggage?

More deflection. No I won't answer your question. The subject line of this thread is "bikes on trains".

Oh sorry. I forgot. Yes, you are completely right in everything you said. You have won.

[maximus meridius]

Nope! I know the subtle significance of disabled as technically I believe I could have the more subtle understanding applied to me. On two counts at least. However, I was only applying the disabled term to apply to the subset which train companies offer accommodations for due to mobility issues such as wheelchair users for whom they define fixed space for.

Fine, yes, you're right.

[mjr]

We pay for tickets for the person. We don't pay for the bike. And I'm more than happy to pay for the bike, if I get a better service. Which is what I said. And I've just said it again. And much like the southern preacher, I'll say it again. And perhaps one day the simple point will sink in.

But will you do better than the southern preacher and answer the obvious question I'm pretty sure was already asked? In this case: if we paid for bikes, do you think people should pay for other large luggage?

More deflection. No I won't answer your question. The subject line of this thread is "bikes on trains".

Oh sorry. I forgot. Yes, you are completely right in everything you said. You have won.

It's not about winning. It's about trying to understand a different point of view that seems pretty strange to me, that an act we wish to encourage (cycling in combination with a train journey) should be made to cost even more, possibly more than using a combustion vehicle at one end or both.

[maximus meridius]

But will you do better than the southern preacher and answer the obvious question I'm pretty sure was already asked? In this case: if we paid for bikes, do you think people should pay for other large luggage?

More deflection. No I won't answer your question. The subject line of this thread is "bikes on trains".

Oh sorry. I forgot. Yes, you are completely right in everything you said. You have won.

It's not about winning. It's about trying to understand a different point of view that seems pretty strange to me, that an act we wish to encourage (cycling in combination with a train journey) should be made to cost even more, possibly more than using a combustion vehicle at one end or both.

Yes, it absolutely is about you wanting to "win". That is the default stance of many of the "regulars" here. Hence the irrelevant extraneous subject of luggage. I can't be bothered to even work out what sort of logical fallacy it is.

No I won't answer your question. Away with your sophistry.

But you can answer mine, if you can be bothered.

How many people decide not to take a train journey because they don't know if they will be allowed to take their suitcase on the train?

How many people decide not to take a train journey because booking a space for their suitcase is too complicated?

Having answered those questions, can you perhaps just take some time to reflect on the way you approach this issue. And perhaps just, with the merest scintilla of humility, accept that bags and suitcases, "luggage", are not at all the same as (full size unfolding) bicycles, in regard to travelling on trains with them.

That's why your question is silly game playing. And I ain't playing it.

[Traction_man]

seen on Facebook

[Tangled Metal]

In my early twenties I took my bike down to Swindon to visit a relative and cycle around the area. I remember I didn't need to book my bike in, pay extra for it, worry about whether I'd have space on the train for it or whether it would get stolen or damaged by other users of the train. All I did was wheel it up to the guards van and he'd lift it up and secure it away in the luggage section of that train. I took two trains to get there and they both had a guards van.

More recently, as in 8 or 9 years ago my partner used to take the train into town with our then young son and a bike with child seat. The train in also had a guards van she put her bike in. Long gone now.

There used to be a good solution to bikes and large luggage that worked well for a long time. It's just that the modem era has designed it out.

[Psamathe]

More deflection. No I won't answer your question. The subject line of this thread is "bikes on trains".

Oh sorry. I forgot. Yes, you are completely right in everything you said. You have won.

It's not about winning. It's about trying to understand a different point of view that seems pretty strange to me, that an act we wish to encourage (cycling in combination with a train journey) should be made to cost even more, possibly more than using a combustion vehicle at one end or both.

Yes, it absolutely is about you wanting to "win". That is the default stance of many of the "regulars" here. Hence the irrelevant extraneous subject of luggage. I can't be bothered to even work out what sort of logical fallacy it is.
...

The issue of charging for luggage is not "irrelevant extraneous subject" e/g/ when I travel with one ToC my cycle is carried as it is classed as luggage. So should I travel for free with my "luggage" (as so defined by the ToC) whilst others taking less space with their bikes are charged?

Ian

[maximus meridius]

It's not about winning. It's about trying to understand a different point of view that seems pretty strange to me, that an act we wish to encourage (cycling in combination with a train journey) should be made to cost even more, possibly more than using a combustion vehicle at one end or both.

Yes, it absolutely is about you wanting to "win". That is the default stance of many of the "regulars" here. Hence the irrelevant extraneous subject of luggage. I can't be bothered to even work out what sort of logical fallacy it is.
...

The issue of charging for luggage is not "irrelevant extraneous subject" e/g/ when I travel with one ToC my cycle is carried as it is classed as luggage. So should I travel for free with my "luggage" (as so defined by the ToC) whilst others taking less space with their bikes are charged?

Ian

The "but do you think you should be charged for luggage?" thing is a rhetorical device by MJR hoping he could win an argument. The device takes this form:

A - "I think this about X"

B- "Ah, but what about this about Y, that's the same isn't it? So you've lost. Hah hah."

And I am not playing that stupid game.

What most people mean by "luggage", regardless of whether your TOC defines a bike as luggage, is bags and suitcases.

Here are some ways bikes aren't the same as "luggage".

On the big intercity trains there is often half a dozen or more suitcases in the luggage racks. Isn't there? Do you think you could get the same number of bikes in there?

You can't ride to work on a suitcase (because they have different purposes)

You can't keep your holiday clothes inside a bicycle (because they have different purposes)

Just a few of the ways in which pedal cycles aren't the same as "luggage" regardless of whether your TOC defines a bike as luggage.

Here's a potential reason why your TOC calls your bike "luggage". It's not because they think a bike is the same as a suitcase. Or the same as a pushchair. Or the same as a double bass. They know that. It's because somewhere there's a database. It's called something like "Stuff we have to manage in our train business". And a database designer will have gone through a long design process, and come up with an Entity-Relationship diagram with things like "Rolling Stock" in it. That entity might have attributes like "IsPowered". There might be "Staff", "Customers" and so on. There might be "Assets" for things like the food trolley. It'll be a really complex ER diagram, because they are, when you get into it. Lastly there might be "CustomersStuff". In other words, things that might be on the train, adding weight, taking space, adding risk etc. But which aren't owned by the TOC, but by the customers. So the TOC isn't really that bothered about the "CustomersStuff" because, well, the TOC didn't buy it. But they better come up with a nicer label than than "CustomersStuff"? How about, oh, I don't know, "Luggage", maybe?

Or there might not be any such database. But they've just decided to call all customers' possessions that they take onto the train "Luggage". Whether it's a suitcase, flute, or bicycle.

[maximus meridius]

In my early twenties I took my bike down to Swindon to visit a relative and cycle around the area. I remember I didn't need to book my bike in, pay extra for it, worry about whether I'd have space on the train for it or whether it would get stolen or damaged by other users of the train. All I did was wheel it up to the guards van and he'd lift it up and secure it away in the luggage section of that train. I took two trains to get there and they both had a guards van.

More recently, as in 8 or 9 years ago my partner used to take the train into town with our then young son and a bike with child seat. The train in also had a guards van she put her bike in. Long gone now.

There used to be a good solution to bikes and large luggage that worked well for a long time. It's just that the modem era has designed it out.

That sounds good.

But that was then. This is now. So there needs to be a new solution. Asking people who use a service to pay for it might be one way.

[maximus meridius]

Also, can all train workers sort out the luggage in cycle bays? I've rarely seen the guard enforcing luggage into racks so cycles can get on. Mostly cyclists end up hovering in the doorways when the cycle area is full of luggage

So here's a crazy crazy idea. Imagine, just imagine, and please, go with me on this for a bit, that the cyclist who had booked the cycle bay had paid some money for it. Would that change the situation at all? Do you think? Possibly?