Bikes on trains

[Psamathe]

Re: Paying for Cycles On Trains.
Whilst I would not be anti paying for cycles on trains, I do feel that from a perspective of society cycling needs to be encouraged (everybody here knows the benefits to society so wont repeat them again). And the needs of society should take priority over the profits for commercial operations. Maybe it comes down to the purpose of public transport (clue in the word "public"?)

Paying would discourage some and change how the rail operators view cycle travel (i.e. as a profitable activity rather than a service and needs of society).

So maybe the more important aspect to paying for cycles on trains is the needs of society being more important than profits ... and we quickly get to discussing why so much of our train system is run for profits for shareholders rather than the good and needs of society.

Ian

[maximus meridius]

Re: Paying for Cycles On Trains.
Whilst I would not be anti paying for cycles on trains, I do feel that from a perspective of society cycling needs to be encouraged (everybody here knows the benefits to society so wont repeat them again). And the needs of society should take priority over the profits for commercial operations. Maybe it comes down to the purpose of public transport (clue in the word "public"?)

Paying would discourage some and change how the rail operators view cycle travel (i.e. as a profitable activity rather than a service and needs of society).

So maybe the more important aspect to paying for cycles on trains is the needs of society being more important than profits ... and we quickly get to discussing why so much of our train system is run for profits for shareholders rather than the good and needs of society.

Ian

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

[Psamathe]

Re: Paying for Cycles On Trains.
Whilst I would not be anti paying for cycles on trains, I do feel that from a perspective of society cycling needs to be encouraged (everybody here knows the benefits to society so wont repeat them again). And the needs of society should take priority over the profits for commercial operations. Maybe it comes down to the purpose of public transport (clue in the word "public"?)

Paying would discourage some and change how the rail operators view cycle travel (i.e. as a profitable activity rather than a service and needs of society).

So maybe the more important aspect to paying for cycles on trains is the needs of society being more important than profits ... and we quickly get to discussing why so much of our train system is run for profits for shareholders rather than the good and needs of society.

Ian

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

When I last travelled by train I had to pay. What trains are free? I raised a valid point and the tone of your response is just unpleasant. Disagree fine but discussion is easier if you raise reasons for disagreeing rather than just cynical comment.

What about paying for large luggage (and sometimes I'm staggered by the massive multiple cases on wheels people drag along)?

Rail travel should be about a service and the needs of society rather than profit for shareholders. Should we be charging extra for wheelchairs because they take up more space than a standing individual?

Ian

[maximus meridius]

Re: Paying for Cycles On Trains.
Whilst I would not be anti paying for cycles on trains, I do feel that from a perspective of society cycling needs to be encouraged (everybody here knows the benefits to society so wont repeat them again). And the needs of society should take priority over the profits for commercial operations. Maybe it comes down to the purpose of public transport (clue in the word "public"?)

Paying would discourage some and change how the rail operators view cycle travel (i.e. as a profitable activity rather than a service and needs of society).

So maybe the more important aspect to paying for cycles on trains is the needs of society being more important than profits ... and we quickly get to discussing why so much of our train system is run for profits for shareholders rather than the good and needs of society.

Ian

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

When I last travelled by train I had to pay. What trains are free? I raised a valid point and the tone of your response is just unpleasant. Disagree fine but discussion is easier if you raise reasons for disagreeing rather than just cynical comment.

What about paying for large luggage (and sometimes I'm staggered by the massive multiple cases on wheels people drag along)?

Rail travel should be about a service and the needs of society rather than profit for shareholders. Should we be charging extra for wheelchairs because they take up more space than a standing individual?

Ian

I have stated the reasons why I think passengers should be charged for taking a bike on a train over and over again. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same thing.

Neither am I going to comment on the various "but what about" issues you drag into the discussion, for the same deflecting reason.

But sure, as always, if you don't like what you hear comment on the "tone" of somebody's reply. It's the usual way that people respond to challenge.

[Psamathe]

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

When I last travelled by train I had to pay. What trains are free? I raised a valid point and the tone of your response is just unpleasant. Disagree fine but discussion is easier if you raise reasons for disagreeing rather than just cynical comment.

What about paying for large luggage (and sometimes I'm staggered by the massive multiple cases on wheels people drag along)?

Rail travel should be about a service and the needs of society rather than profit for shareholders. Should we be charging extra for wheelchairs because they take up more space than a standing individual?

Ian

I have stated the reasons why I think passengers should be charged for taking a bike on a train over and over again. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same thing.

Neither am I going to comment on the various "but what about" issues you drag into the discussion, for the same deflecting reason.

But sure, as always, if you don't like what you hear comment on the "tone" of somebody's reply. It's the usual way that people respond to challenge.

Sensible discussion is raising the reasons for disagreeing. If you've already said reasons then posting a cynical response is under your stated view a "waste my time".

The comparison with free large items taking space is a very valid question as e.g. when I checked (and then travelled) with one rail operator over my folding recumbent their response was that whilst they don't carry recumbent trikes, if it folds it becomes classed as "large luggage" and thus can be carried under those rules.

Ian

[maximus meridius]

When I last travelled by train I had to pay. What trains are free? I raised a valid point and the tone of your response is just unpleasant. Disagree fine but discussion is easier if you raise reasons for disagreeing rather than just cynical comment.

What about paying for large luggage (and sometimes I'm staggered by the massive multiple cases on wheels people drag along)?

Rail travel should be about a service and the needs of society rather than profit for shareholders. Should we be charging extra for wheelchairs because they take up more space than a standing individual?

Ian

I have stated the reasons why I think passengers should be charged for taking a bike on a train over and over again. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same thing.

Neither am I going to comment on the various "but what about" issues you drag into the discussion, for the same deflecting reason.

But sure, as always, if you don't like what you hear comment on the "tone" of somebody's reply. It's the usual way that people respond to challenge.

Sensible discussion is raising the reasons for disagreeing. If you've already said reasons then posting a cynical response is under your stated view a "waste my time".

The comparison with free large items taking space is a very valid question as e.g. when I checked (and then travelled) with one rail operator over my folding recumbent their response was that whilst they don't carry recumbent trikes, if it folds it becomes classed as "large luggage" and thus can be carried under those rules.

Ian

I made a very simple point. That as we pay for train tickets (and also for drinks and food from the trolley) why shouldn't we pay to take a bike on the train. I may have made the point in a way that has upset you, but as it comes under the heading of "the bleedin' obvious", maybe you need to adjust your sensitivity settings.

At the moment cycle provision on trains is something which generates no income for the train operator, but involves cost to them, whoever the train operator is (note my emphasis). So there is no incentive whatsoever for the train operator to improve that service. Hence the poor service currently available, of varying quality.

For many passengers with bikes there would be a large financial gain. Particularly the bike-train-bike commuters, who could often then leave the car at home, or possibly sell it altogether. Which are the main group of users I am thinking of.

[Psamathe]

[...
I made a very simple point. That as we pay for train tickets (and also for drinks and food from the trolley) why shouldn't we pay to take a bike on the train. I may have made the point in a way that has upset you, but as it comes under the heading of "the bleedin' obvious", maybe you need to adjust your sensitivity settings....

I disagree about the issue being "bleedin' obvious" as a public transport system needs to serve the needs of society rather than the wishes of wealthy shareholders. I feel it a wider issue than just trains but when public services are allowed to be driven as profit being the priority we end-up with e.g. water companies filling our rivers with sewage. Needs of society should be the main driving principle of such services.

But thank you for the advice as to how I need to change my character - always helpful to have people point out your failings.

Ian

[maximus meridius]

[...
I made a very simple point. That as we pay for train tickets (and also for drinks and food from the trolley) why shouldn't we pay to take a bike on the train. I may have made the point in a way that has upset you, but as it comes under the heading of "the bleedin' obvious", maybe you need to adjust your sensitivity settings....

I disagree about the issue being "bleedin' obvious" as a public transport system needs to serve the needs of society rather than the wishes of wealthy shareholders. I feel it a wider issue than just trains but when public services are allowed to be driven as profit being the priority we end-up with e.g. water companies filling our rivers with sewage. Needs of society should be the main driving principle of such services.

But thank you for the advice as to how I need to change my character - always helpful to have people point out your failings.

Ian

Nope, it's simple.

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.

You can expand it into some nebulous thing about what should be free or not. The minute you start talking about "the needs of society" you are very quickly into language like "an enemy of the people". The sort of thing so beloved by, oh, I don't know, Stalin. Maybe best to steer clear of those areas, and stick to the very simple point. Which is that we pay for the person, but we don't pay for the bike. Why not?

(Any second now somebody will probably be along with some talk about "The Daily Heil" and probably something to do with Thatcher, and The Tories. That's always an argument winner.)

[PH]

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

All rail travel is subsidised, we're talking about the level of subsidy.
Th OP didn't use the train because of the uncertainties surrounding that journey. I can pretty much guarantee that journey could have been made on trains that could of had space for more bikes, which would have removed that uncertainty, the train company lost revenue by not providing that.
The idea of selling unused capacity at less than cost isn't unusual, you get it in all forms of commercial enterprises. There's no profit in those ten quid air tickets even if they filled the plane with them, but they've already making a profit and the planes going anyway... Amongst the problems with the UK's rail franchises is they're run neither as a public service or on a commercial basis, the ToC's are paid to provide a service, the most profitable option for them is provide as little as possible without losing the franchise. We're not going to improve on that under this regime > Thatcher, Tories, Heil, etc

[maximus meridius]

Amongst the problems with the UK's rail franchises is they're run neither as a public service or on a commercial basis,

Quite possibly. A lot of it looks like a confusing mess. I hardly ever take trains. But my wife does, and is an expert on navigating the ticket system, seat reservations, 1st class upgrades etc. Though only on one route.

Maybe we should have a nationalised railway system, like Deutsche Bahn.

Oh, wait, we sort of have already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenitalia

for instance.

Just that the nation in the "nationalised" part isn't the UK. Not that I've got a problem with other countries running our railways, if they're better at it.

Still, "How Awful The Railways Are And How I Would Fix Them" is always fodder for internet discussion, isn't it? Ditto the NHS.

[maximus meridius]

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

The idea of selling unused capacity at less than cost isn't unusual...

Wait, hang on. There's a word in there. Let me just make sure I've got this right. "Selling". So are you suggesting, just maybe, that the rail companies could "sell" a bike space?

Here's the thing. I said I wouldn't mind paying for a bike space. At no point, ever, anywhere, at all, did I suggest a price. Neither did I suggest that the evil train operating company should make a profit on the bike space they sell me. Even if it were possible to calculate how much, if any, "profit" they made per bike space.

It might very well be a loss leader. That's probably not the right term. But on one of my (potential) bike commutes the walk at the other end is a bit far. But would be a doddle on a bike, and mainly traffic free. In which case I'd buy a passenger ticket and a bike ticket. Christ, it costs me £4 just to park. The return rail fare (passenger) is about £6. It would take very little to make a bike-train-bike commute more attractive. But what it would take would be the certainty that I could get the bike on the train (along with the unlight luggage I have to take). And I wouldn't mind paying for that certainty, at all. So then they've got a foot passenger they wouldn't have had, plus a bit more income for the bike. Hey, everyone's a winner!!

Still, the TOCs are evil, and they should do it for free. Or something along those lines.

[Tangled Metal]

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

[PH]

Yes, you are completely right. Taking a bike on a train should be free. Just like getting on as a passenger is at the moment, because nobody has to pay to travel on a train, do they?

The idea of selling unused capacity at less than cost isn't unusual...

Wait, hang on. There's a word in there. Let me just make sure I've got this right. "Selling". So are you suggesting, just maybe, that the rail companies could "sell" a bike space?

No, they didn't sell the OP anything, he hired a van instead, if they'd made using the train practical, they could have sold him a ticket. If I'm travelling by train with a bike, something I frequently do, it's one operation, the bike can't go on it's own and I'm not going without it.

[maximus meridius]

The idea of selling unused capacity at less than cost isn't unusual...

Wait, hang on. There's a word in there. Let me just make sure I've got this right. "Selling". So are you suggesting, just maybe, that the rail companies could "sell" a bike space?

No, they didn't sell the OP anything, he hired a van instead, if they'd made using the train practical, they could have sold him a ticket.

Indeed. Massive failure by the TOC. And for the OP. They didn't sell him a ticket, he had to hire a van, extra emission of GHG (probably). Everybody loses.

Actually, I wonder what the price of two seats would have been. Less that £75? I'm a musician, I haven't flown with my instrument much, but it is a permanent source of stress for certain instrumentalists (flying with instruments). So much so that many cellists actually book another seat, and put the cello there. I'm wondering if you could do that with a bike on a train. I expect some train staff would protest. Plus oily marks on the seats, etc. Still if it were possible, and less than £75, the OP would be up on the deal.

[TrevA]

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 happened to us on the Inverness to Wick train at the start of our JOGLE. We had actually booked bike spaces, only to get on the train and find the bike spaces filled with prams and pushchairs. We managed to squeeze 3 bikes into the remaining 2 bike space, but it shows that even if you book a space it’s not guaranteed.