Should the railway charge to carry things other than passengers? If so, what should the fares be?

[py_megapixel]

Specifically pets, but also baggage, bicycles, and anything else.

My personal feeling is that pets should be chargeable, except assistance animals. They are after all taking up space which could be used by a standing passenger, and, especially in the case of a selfish/irresponsible owner, can be a burden on others in the carriage.

Luggage is a bit more of a grey area in my opinion. Obviously it's entirely impractical to charge every commuter/day-tripper to take a rucksack on the train, but when I see people boarding a crowded train with 2 enormous wheeled suitcases (and yes that does happen occasionally) I do tend to wonder whether a charge might be in order just to rationalise the amount of stuff people are bringing with them and clogging up the racks/aisles with!

Bikes, I think a small fee is in order - although with modern bike storage designs they don't take up a huge amount of floorspace at all, the space they take up could still be repurposed into something else.

 

[221129]

So basically you'd like to make the railway less attractive to people than cars or other modes...

Plus if you charge for a bike etc and for whatever reason are unable to carry it due to bustitution you then have an obligation to carry that bike somehow to its destination.

 

[Harpers Tate]

It all depends on whether you (or more likely they) are in any way serious about things like green transport, active travel and so on. If they WANT people to not drive to the airport; to NOT drive to the station - or worse to NOT drive all the way to work (or any other destination/activity) then policy has to support this across the board.

Back in the 70/80s, I used to live 1.5 miles from the station, and I used to work 1 mile from the station at the other end. And I made that trip by biketrain/bike. There was always at least one "guard's van" with room for 10+ cycles, and no surcharge, so there was practically no risk one could not board. Today, with limited space and/or the need to pre-book in places - and with it being too far to walk (at least from a time-efficiency POV) I'd drive.

Likewise if I had to pay a premium for luggage to the airport. It's already hardly cost-effective when a couple travel together; worse for a family - even without luggage surcharges. With only a medium degree of confidence that one's inbound flight will arrive on time, pre-booking Advance fares isn't all that attractive, and comparing any flexible rate for 2+ people - it's cheaper to go by taxi (never mind driving onesself) both ways. So making it even more costly isn't going to drive me off the road.

There is the dilemma.

Personally, I do have a "green" agenda and do support active travel as a concept. But if that's going to happen to any material degree - a complete rethink about capacity provision and pricing - which will cost, of course.

 

[py_megapixel]

So basically you'd like to make the railway less attractive to people than cars or other modes...

Plus if you charge for a bike etc and for whatever reason are unable to carry it due to bustitution you then have an obligation to carry that bike somehow to its destination.

Would a guarantee that your bike/suitcase/pet will be carried not make the railways more attractive?
I'm not suggesting charging huge amounts here. Possibly just a cheap flat fare.

 

[221129]

Would a guarantee that your bike/suitcase/pet will be carried not make the railways more attractive?
I'm not suggesting charging huge amounts here. Possibly just a cheap flat fare.

I'm giving examples as to why it is unattractive to both sides...

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm giving examples as to why it is unattractive to both sides...

I really think the railway should be reconsidering its priorities if it considers meeting the needs and preferences of its passengers to be a burden which it wishes to avoid.

 

[mmh]

Would a guarantee that your bike/suitcase/pet will be carried not make the railways more attractive?
I'm not suggesting charging huge amounts here. Possibly just a cheap flat fare.

What sort of amount do you have in mind? The wording "cheap" suggests it may not cover the cost of carrying these things you are presuming is an issue. If that's the case, then what is the charge for? A desire for more of rules, or a dislike of people behaving in a different way? Neither are a realistic justification for it and would only serve to make travelling by train more unattractive.

And that's before the question of enforcement. RPIs performing belongings checks and issuing luggage penalty fares, anyone? I suppose it would keep the forums busy at least.

 

[pdeaves]

Am I correct in understanding that more than a certain amount of luggage is, technically, chargeable already (just that TOCs usually don't bother to enforce it)?

 

[221129]

Am I correct in understanding that more than a certain amount of luggage is, technically, chargeable already (just that TOCs usually don't bother to enforce it)?

Correct.

 

[Elecman]

Am I correct in understanding that more than a certain amount of luggage is, technically, chargeable already (just that TOCs usually don't bother to enforce it)?

Yes indeed

 

[Polarbear]

BR used to charge fares for dogs, certainly. Been some years since they were around though.

 

[telstarbox]

Are you talking just intercity here? If not, how would you enforce this on DOO trains which call at unstaffed stations?

 

[Energy]

I wouldn't bother charging, if the route gets a lot of bikes then you should consider giving a proper area for bikes, like Scotrail have done. Pets aren't really that much of a problem as most can sit under the seat or by it. Not allowing pets on the seat is reasonable and only allowing certain pets, horses are a bit too large.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

What benefit do you get out of charging for bikes?

 

[biko]

Here in the Netherlands and surrounding countries this is already normal. I presume the charge for bicycles exists to reduce demand on short stretches. The provision of bike spaces is actually way too small, so otherwise the whole train would probably be filled with bicycles. The fare is currently €7.50 per day independent on distance travelled. Also Dutch railways charge for dogs, but just €3.20 for a day.

I think the main benefit is just more revenue and in some cases managing demand for space on the train if space is limited (as is the case with bikes in NL)

 

[Midnight Sun]

It used to be half fare for a cabin trunk, last time was in 2002.

 

[Ethano92]

Doesn't the New York Subway have a rule that dogs (or pets in general I suppose) are only allowed when carried in your arms or in a bag. This essentially excludes the larger, more space taking breeds of dog.

I think dogs are fine on public transport, maybe it would be better to have them banned during peak times although in all honesty, I'd be surprised just how comfortable any dog would feel on a properly crush-loaded train, how many owners would choose to put their pet through that, especially with how easily dogs overheat. Priority on such busy services should be for people anyway. If the train isn't crush loaded, but just 'busy' then there's still space to accommodate everyone. As for no dogs on seats I agree absolutely.

 

[brad465]

While not a mainline operation, the West Somerset Railway has for a while at least had a £3 charge for either taking a dog or bicycle on one of their services.

 

[6Gman]

Specifically pets, but also baggage, bicycles, and anything else.

My personal feeling is that pets should be chargeable, except assistance animals. They are after all taking up space which could be used by a standing passenger,

My general experience is that most dogs sit under the table, or in the well alongside their owner's feet - neither of which would be attractive to a standing passenger.

Also they generally provide pleasure to other passengers.

 

[43096]

Do you support charging for bikes or indeed any other form of luggage, as they take up space on the train as well?