Transport of bicycles in LD service

Greg Moore wrote: Trust me, I'm far more likely to bring my bike on a train once the new baggage cars are in operation than I am now.

Indeed, but are you far more likely to travel? This is the same principle I mentioned in the Pet thread. You can make concessions and allow all sorts of things on the train. You can bring back smoking and I'm sure it will appeal to some riders. However, is it worth the tradeoff? How many potential passengers are you losing by not allowing golf clubs? Will modifying the cars to accommodate them be a worthwhile endeavor? Where is the line draw?

This is a true story. Years ago, some X-rated company wanted to charter an entire Viewliner and film a movie on the rear end of train 66. It is a source of revenue, but they were basically told to pound sand (honesty was not the best policy here because they probably could have not said anything and reserved the car.)

Is it worth the trade off? Should we have a "Risky Business" car? I'd bet it would sell.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote: I guess removing pedals is just too much for travelers these days, so I suppose it is fortunate that new baggage cars are arriving soon. We can store the bikes right next to the guns that everyone wants to travel.

It's not JUST removing the pedals. It's also loosening the handlebars. And buying or bringing your own bike box. Makes it a bit harder to just bike to the station, check it/bring it on, get off at destination and bike off.

Oh no! You have to loosen the handlebars AND take the pedals off?? My goodness!!! Well, that just seals it for me. Why make things a "bit" harder? I mean performing two acts and having to put in a box?

I'll type this slowly so you can follow along.... Bicyclists want to RIDE their bike to the train and then RIDE it as soon as they got off the train. Turning the handlebars sideways, taking off the pedals, then placing the whole thing in a cardboard box and taping it shut is not condusive to that RIDING component....

MikeinNeb wrote:I'll type this slowly so you can follow along.... Bicyclists want to RIDE their bike to the train and then RIDE it as soon as they got off the train. Turning the handlebars sideways, taking off the pedals, then placing the whole thing in a cardboard box and taping it shut is not condusive to that RIDING component....

OOooohhh! Bicyclists WANT to ride their bike to the train? And they WANT to ride is as soon as they get off? Well, that is just splendid!


I'll type this slowly so you can understand:

Are you ready?

I WANT A PONY!

My parents told me they'd buy me a pony...and they didn't. That's because you can't always have everything you want in life.

While I no longer want a pony, I DO want an Amtrak train to divert from its normal path, drop down the commuter line that runs near my backyard and pick me up on the way to work.

I don't think its going to happen though. As such I have to get off my butt and take steps to make my way to the train. However, it is something I do if I WANT to ride an Amtrak train. I'm sure smokers do not like shivering on the platforms as they take a puff. However, they do it because Amtrak got rid of the smoking cars.

I also would prefer to drive my own car when I'm frolicking around Maryland. Therefore, instead of renting a car if I take the train or skipping the train and driving, I WANT to drive to MetroPark, drive my car on to a waiting Auto Carrier, short shift an Acela on top of it and proceed to WAS. Upon arrival, I WANT someone to off load my vehicle FIRST when I arrive in DC. This is because, not unlike cyclists, I WANT to drive my car. Amtrak should make all of this happen for me because I WANT it and I can afford it (if others chip in), that is all that matters. Catenary clearance issues be damned, I want it and I should have it.

I want it I want it I want it I want it!


So, I know the indignity of not getting exactly what you WANT is just too much to bear, but you're not alone.

that being said, If I can't get my "risky business car," perhaps I should push for a "nude car." You see, when people want to get busy on the rails, I think they shouldn't have to crowd into the rest room (I have a few funny stories about that if anyone wants to PM me ). I also think that they shouldn't have to wait until they get off the train (but others would disagree)...because they obviously WANT it! I'm off to lobby for a nude car. This way, they don't have to bother with getting undressed when they get off the train since clothes aren't usually conducive to immediate action.

Usually!

Wow! Did I stumble onto bicycle-derangement-syndrome.com?

Whenever someone suffering from this syndrome sees anything that might further bicycling, they oppose it vehemently, fearing that life as they know it will come to an end. A serious outbreak of this malady occurred recently in my town when traffic engineers proposed adding a bike lane to a street.

This is closely related to Amtrak derangement syndrome.

There are those here who enjoy putting down someone they disagree with by claiming that the person never worked for a railroad, or in this case stepped foot in an Amtrak baggage car. By the same token, it is obvious that many commentators here have never done any bicycle touring or used a bicycle as transportation, much less even considered it.

The difference between bicycles and pets/golf clubs/whatever is that a bicycle is a LEGITIMATE, LEGALLY RECOGNIZED TRANSPORTATION OPTION. You can (and, in fact, you are supposed to) ride one on the road, right along with the automobiles. Doesn't matter if you're going down the street, or across the country. Now, one could argue that: why can't (outside of the Auto Train) motorcycles or autos be carried on Amtrak? Well, simply because they are too big and too heavy, and can't realistically be accommodated in standard baggage service. Not much you can do about that, I don't think? Bikes on trains are economical for the very same reason bikes AS BIKES are economical: they have a relatively small footprint, but are theoretically just as useful as anything else around. To me, it seems hugely advantageous to be able to skip out on the taxi fare/bus ride/car rental at either end of the trip, if I were willing to put in a little bit of pedal power.

Taking a quick look at the new rack design, I would say that maybe 4-5 bikes on the rack takes up about the same space as one fully loaded pallet? Doesn't seem like that huge of a deal to me. If space constraints necessitate, then initiate a system in which only so many bikes (or so many pallets, or whatever else) per trip can be handled. First come first served. Most LD baggage cars do NOT run very full, outside of their respective "peak seasons"... yes they do get VERY Full during peak, and hence the reason for some sort of priority system. This should not be that hard to accomplish. Bike boxes already take up LOTS of room in the baggage car, and the only real utility I see to them is that (in theory) you can stack them atop one another if necessary. Even though you really shouldn't, if you can help it, because of the delicacy of the bikes' components.

I don't see any reason why bicycles couldn't be handled as-is, unmodified and unboxed, so long as you make the passenger/shipper sign a waiver relieving the company of all possible damage liability. Transport, handling, everything. Just attach a regular baggage tag somewhere on the frame, find some place to toss it up in there, and off you go. Even with that long string attached, people would still come to the service in droves. I guarantee you they would. (I believe a limited liability clause is already even in effect now, with the whole "box" system.) Short distance intercity services (IL, PA, WI, etc.) would especially benefit from this. People would have a lot more confidence in the system, I think, if they witnessed their bikes being hung, intact, upon sturdy racks - without any sort of jilting, un/boxing, dis/assembly, etc. They would still technically waive liability, but at least a confidence factor would be there. The boxes are just silly, really. They might be an admirable attempt at a money-maker, if anything. An easy way to keep the revenue would just be to do away with the boxes and fold the "box fee" into the existing "handling fee". Charge 'em the same rate overall, but skip out on having to buy all of that corrugated.

One thing I _do_ disagree with is the system that Illinois DOT put in place on their respective state trains: they wanted people to be able to bring along unboxed bikes, but Amtrak didn't have the equipment/accomodations for such. Didn't (and still don't) have neither extra baggs or coaches to be able to dedicate any space to bike rack retrofits. And so, a deal was made which essentially translated to: bicycles can be brought aboard IL trains, and charged an extra fee for such; but they pretty much have to be TOTALLY taken apart by the passenger, and assembled into some sort of haphazard package - e.g. boxed/taped/bungee-corded together - in such a way that they can be stuffed into an overhead/bulkhead baggage rack. Now, this is just a patently ridiculous way of doing things. It is haphazard and unsafe. The only reason this particular arrangement was even commenced was just the simple fact that, at the time, Amtrak was desperate work with IL, and simultaneously IL was desperate to work with Amtrak.

jobtraklite wrote:
There are those here who enjoy putting down someone they disagree with by claiming that the person never worked for a railroad, or in this case stepped foot in an Amtrak baggage car.

If you interpret that as a put down, that is on you. I take it as reality. If you've never been in a baggage car, how can you accurately discuss the dynamics of what really can and can't be done. I've never been in the space shuttle, but I've seen pictures so I suppose that makes me a shuttle pilot?

Oh right! This is the internet! Who needs practical experience?

jobtraklite wrote: By the same token, it is obvious that many commentators here have never done any bicycle touring or used a bicycle as transportation, much less even considered it.

Actually, I had an 18 speed Mongoose Hill Topper since (up until 6 years ago) I did a quite of bit of cycling. I used to ride it to the train station when the weather permitted. If I traveled within specific time periods, I would lock it up at the train station since I wasn't allowed to take it on train. The fact I couldn't take it on the train did not stop me from riding it. Additionally, I don't think twice about renting bikes if I travel and feel the need to use one ( such is when I'm vacationing with family.)

So, it isn't the bike I have a problem with. If you want to travel with your bike, you have the option of checking it just like you can check a coffin. You also have the option of a folding bike. It isn't banned like Boa Constrictors, Dogs, Cats, Bats, Gerbils, smoking, fornicating, jet skis, canoes and a host of other things that aren't currently accommodated. The options exist. Some people just choose not to utilize them..because it takes a grand total of 15 minutes to put two pedals and tighten handlebars. To me, that isn't worth whining over. I never had a problem shipping my bike (the two times I took it with me) or renting one if I felt the need.

But not everyone is me...which is fine. Most of this is moot since new baggage cars are on the way and they are properly set up and partitioned to handle bikes, guns, luggage, pallets and mail (containers.)


Mr Moore, this Ethan Allen isn't a Long Distance train. Neither is the Adirondack. That is a horse of different color and is a conversation we had in the Sen. Schumer: Special Bicycle Cars For Upstate NY Trains. The thought process I'm using in this thread is for Long Distance trains, which typically have baggage cars.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

MikeinNeb wrote:I'll type this slowly so you can follow along.... Bicyclists want to RIDE their bike to the train and then RIDE it as soon as they got off the train. Turning the handlebars sideways, taking off the pedals, then placing the whole thing in a cardboard box and taping it shut is not condusive to that RIDING component....

OOooohhh! Bicyclists WANT to ride their bike to the train? And they WANT to ride is as soon as they get off? Well, that is just splendid!


I'll type this slowly so you can understand:

Are you ready?

I WANT A PONY!

My parents told me they'd buy me a pony...and they didn't. That's because you can't always have everything you want in life.

While I no longer want a pony, I DO want an Amtrak train to divert from its normal path, drop down the commuter line that runs near my backyard and pick me up on the way to work.

Well tell you what, if you think that taking bikes on trains is comparable to taking "ponies" on trains, then I think that you've proven to pretty much everyone that you have no clue on the subject. Which pretty much means you shouldn't comment on it, because...well ya-know....I'll try to put it nicely.... You don't come across as too convincing......

Then again, maybe you're Amish.....

But it's a moot point because Amtrak is in fact putting bike racks on all their trains, so I guess all that's left is for you to stew about it and go reread your copy of "National Velvet".

OK, let's have Amtrak adopt its competitors bicycle policy. If airlines which have to earn a profit to stay in business carry them, so should Amtrak, under similar terms. Of course, regular passengers are allowed only one checked bag by United so the bike would be in lieu of that luggage or an excess baggage fee would apply:

"United accepts non-motorized bicycles with single or double seats (including tandem) or up to two non-motorized bicycles packed in one case as checked baggage. If the bicycle(s) are packed in a container that is over 50 pounds (23 kg) and/or 62 (158 cm) total linear inches (L + W + H), a $150 service charge applies each way for travel between the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a $200 service charge applies each way for all other travel. If the bicycle(s) are packed in a container that is less than 50 pounds (23 kg) and 62 (158 cm) total linear inches (L + W + H), there is no bicycle service charge, but the first or second checked bag service charges may apply.
The following are bicycle restrictions:
Handlebars must be fixed sideways and pedals removed, or
All loose items must be enclosed in plastic foam or similar protective material, or
Bicycle should be transported in a sealed box.
If your itinerary includes a United Express flight, please contact United for information regarding aircraft cargo hold limits
United is not liable for damage to bicycles that do not have the handlebars fixed sideways and pedals removed, handlebars and pedals encased in plastic foam or similar material, or bicycles not contained in a cardboard containers or hard-sided cases.
Note: Bicycles will not be accepted during an excess baggage embargo when no excess baggage is allowed."

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content ... ports.aspx

I think MikeinNeb and ThirdRail7 got off on the wrong foot, but I'd like to try to set up a productive exchange.
In another thread, MikeinNeb had a more-detailed discussion of bikes in the belly of the California Zephyr, and supplied this picture of one such compartment and relayed that the crew's opinion was that bikes would be very workable.


Channeling a bit of ThirdRail7 (knowing that everything on a train is more complicated and more inter-linked than it seems), I expressed skepticism but believe there's probably a price in the $50 to $100 range (per segment) that might make it a financial winner for Amtrak. A price that feels high to the casual user "felt" a lot like the Autotrain's car-carrying. Most people upon casual encounter with $50 for a bike and many hundreds for a car think the price "too high" compared to the value of the vehicle or renting one when you get there. But the Autotrain is profitable because serious users know that shipping a car aint cheap and ain't tiddlywinks. Similarly, "serious" bike owners (with ~$700 to $2000 bikes...valuable enough, but not crazy-valuable) would find the "premium" price just fine compared other carrier's fees (like United's $100 each way), other ways of shipping, or the costs of moving it yourself.

One concern was how many (or how few) would use the service: the Cascades--traveling between the USA's #1 bike city (Portland) and #4 bike city (Seattle) only provides enough bike spaces for 2% of its users. This kind of implies that far fewer than 1% of users would bring a bike in any other market.

For $100, couldn't you just rent a bike when you get to your destination? I know there likely isn't bike rental in Elko or Erie, PA, especially near the station, but there are some options. I ride a lot and I still have no desire to hump a bike onto a train and/or through a station.

Tadman wrote:For $100, couldn't you just rent a bike when you get to your destination?

You could. Some will. The goal is neither to please all cyclists of every walk of life, nor to make renting obsolete. Rather, the goal should be to find an nice market and make money in it.

In a similar way, the Auto Train wants ~$200 for hauling a car ($400 r/t)...and you can very often rent one for less than that. And the people-tix don't look cheap compared to flying, either (particularly if you were actually going to fill that minivan you're shipping by AutoTrain...).

Nothing about the Auto Train is priced so that everyone will do it. It is priced that Amtrak can make a profit (or at least pay its direct costs) on those select customers who (for whatever reason) chose travel with their vehicle and, in so doing, pay a price that might look high to those who chose to rent a vehicle when they get there.

People who don't care what kind of bike they are on are happy to rent one, just like people who aren't attached to their cars will rent one in Florida. But people who have spent hours selecting & customizing & adjusting a bike sized and featured just right for themselves (and who might easily have paid $500 to $2000 for their bike) would be the target market. It is less about the bike than it is about the *feel* of "my bike"...which could be worth $50 to $100 per segment.

The Auto Train caters to people who like to drive their own car in a funny sweet spot: they like driving enough that they want their car, but not so much that they're willing to drive themselves for the Va.-Fla. part of the trip. Whether it's the stereo pre-sets or the seats and mirrors, or the bumper sticker, we don't care. They are attached to their cars and pay a price to ship themselves and their cars that "renters" would consider silly.

Arlington wrote:I think MikeinNeb and ThirdRail7 got off on the wrong foot, but I'd like to try to set up a productive exchange.
In another thread, MikeinNeb had a more-detailed discussion of bikes in the belly of the California Zephyr, and supplied this picture of one such compartment and relayed that the crew's opinion was that bikes would be very workable.


Channeling a bit of ThirdRail7 (knowing that everything on a train is more complicated and more inter-linked than it seems), I expressed skepticism but believe there's probably a price in the $50 to $100 range (per segment) that might make it a financial winner for Amtrak. A price that feels high to the casual user "felt" a lot like the Autotrain's car-carrying. Most people upon casual encounter with $50 for a bike and many hundreds for a car think the price "too high" compared to the value of the vehicle or renting one when you get there. But the Autotrain is profitable because serious users know that shipping a car aint cheap and ain't tiddlywinks. Similarly, "serious" bike owners (with ~$700 to $2000 bikes...valuable enough, but not crazy-valuable) would find the "premium" price just fine compared other carrier's fees (like United's $100 each way), other ways of shipping, or the costs of moving it yourself.

One concern was how many (or how few) would use the service: the Cascades--traveling between the USA's #1 bike city (Portland) and #4 bike city (Seattle) only provides enough bike spaces for 2% of its users. This kind of implies that far fewer than 1% of users would bring a bike in any other market.

Given that Amtrak pays the money to already haul this "box" around, plus in a discussion with Amtrak service personnel specifically on "Rolling on and off bikes on a Superliner", then other then maintenance and cleaning of the compartment and bike racks, there is no additional efforts required of or effects on Amtrak by having these bike racks in place. (And I know for example a local bike advocacy organization is willing to buy racks and donate them if they'd get used.

Discussions of bikes on planes has nothing to do with this discussion. Why is that?
1. Bikes inherently have to be handled by airline personnel and must be placed in the plane's baggage compartment. Thus, they inherently have to be boxed and placed in an airport's baggage handling system.
2. I'm guessing the places that you can ride a bike up to the ticket counter of a train station our several times greater than where you can do that at an airport.

Given my hope that cleaning and maintenance of the bike racks is a minimal cost, then these unboxed bikes can just be looked on as one more piece of carry on baggage. And if Amtrak extracts $10 per person each way from a person rolling on their bike, as opposed to say a duffle bag, then that is $10 more in Amtrak's pocket each way with no additional effort on their part.

Therefore it is a financial benefit.

Pricing it to so that it provides funding for elevating the bridges north of New Haven is not an appropriate pricing strategy...

Arlington wrote: You could. Some will. The goal is neither to please all cyclists of every walk of life, nor to make renting obsolete. Rather, the goal should be to find an nice market and make money in it.

People who don't care what kind of bike they are on are happy to rent one, just like people who aren't attached to their cars will rent one in Florida. But people who have spent hours selecting & customizing & adjusting a bike sized and featured just right for themselves (and who might easily have paid $500 to $2000 for their bike) would be the target market. It is less about the bike than it is about the *feel* of "my bike"...which could be worth $50 to $100 per segment.

I still have a hard time imagining that anyone would say $100 is a good deal for hauling their bike on a train. I am a rider myself with a decent road bike (not too expensive but not from Wal-mart either), and have a few friends who are serious bikers. Trust me when they figure out that carrying their bike 6 trips (back and forth) on a train will equal the cost of buying another bike of that caliber, they are simply not going to bring their bike or rent one when they get there. Amtrak is not losing out on a market that is not there. Should all MB and BMW drivers pay $8 a gallon for their gas just because "they can" and it's supposedly "doing more for them?" Again, that is tyranny.

When there is space available, and the amount of usable space will not be used otherwise, and while bikes are light luggage, it is proper to charge the normal bike fee or count it as a piece of baggage.