JR East mulls seats for dogs on some special Shinkansen rides
asahi.com
asahi.com
The other is application in general. It would help travellers I think, but the Shinkansen is a intercity service more akin to an intercity flight. I am not sure how common it would be to have a bicycle move between cities, rather than say rolling luggage. Also thinking of the reduced capacity and increased chaos of the trains should you add bicycles to the general carriages.
Lastly, affordances for bikes are pretty good in most other ways, you could probably keep a cheap bike either side of your common stops. I would love to hear if people actually do this.
Where I live we can take bicycles on trains, and you can really only get two or three cyclists into a carriage before it becomes messy chaos. For our trains, cyclists can use the spot reserved for wheelchairs if there isn't one on board. If you need to get off and your bike is underneath other peoples it is a mess. Most people just stand with their bikes, and again if you got on in the wrong order it's a real pain to get a bike through the crowd. Bikes fall over all the time, and we take up a large amount of room.
The shinkansen lines are different in that you book a seat, so I suppose they could have dedicated cycle storeage near the exit of the shinkansen, that you have to book with your ticket.
My understanding is that you can bring a bike (in a bag, disassembled) on board, and stow it near the end of the car behind the seats, but I've never tried it, nor have I seen it (but I've only ridden a handful of times so I'm no expert).
You can; on the busier lines you have to book the specific seats at the end of the carriages near the luggage space. It's better than nothing but it's a lot of faff.
The punctuality matters in systems which are close to their critical operation limit. One delay here will slowly propagate across everywhere in the network. You need slack in the system for lateness to work with it.
I'm not just a bicyclist, I'm also a pet owner. Swedish trains are very generous regarding pets. Especially Öresundståg, the commuter trains of the south and south west.
While in Denmark they are very strict suddenly, requiring even the smallest dog to be crated in the bicycle area.
(A Swedish friend who lives here in Copenhagen says in practise, Danish train/bus staff are much less likely to actually enforce the rule than Swedish staff, so it's better here.)
Why?
Is this about needing to be on time primarily because there's a reputation to maintain, or would bad things happen if one runs late?
How many trains per hour run on a single line?
EDIT: "At peak times, the line carries up to 16 trains per hour in each direction with 16 cars each (1,323-seat capacity and occasionally additional standing passengers) with a minimum headway of three minutes between trains" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen )
EDIT2: apparently the busiest line in Europe is the Paris-Lyon TGV line, which currently handles 13 trains per hour and is being progressively upgraded to handle 14 trains per hour from 2025, then 16 trains per hour by 2030. ( https://railway-news.com/paris-lyon-high-speed-line-to-get-a... )
Again, this still doesn't feel like the Shinkansen needs to time departures to the second any more than other busy railway lines do. Apart from that their reputation is that they do?
I'm sure reputation and culture plays a huge part in this, but as I said I don't know the specifics of their operation so I can only speculate. When you have multiple lines with many trains serving the same station, the number of platforms you have available at a given time becomes a problem. Also, a train being a few seconds early might cause another train to wait at a switch.
There is also the problem with transfers. In Europe, when taking international trains, they take no responsibility if you miss your train because of a delay, unlike airlines. This makes it a huge pain to go to another non-neighboring country by train. I'm aware that this is not an issue of "seconds" but rather minutes or sometimes hours, but imagine missing an appointment by just a few seconds. If your transit is punctual, all the responsibility is yours.
Source?
If you are ticketed across one or more European borders I believe the train operating companies will take some responsibility, at least in terms of allowing alternative trains without a new ticket.
This summer I travelled with my daughter from Paris to Austria, changing in both Mannheim and Munich, and we misconnected in Mannheim and had to take an alternative to our booked train to Munich, and an alternative train from Munich to Kufstein.
We were on a "booked trains only" (completely inflexible) ticket, but in both cases a quick conversation with the train staff and having the DB app showing the hugely delayed (booked) train was all that was required.
https://help.raileurope.co.uk/article/41665-understanding-ci...
If you don't purchase single through ticket for air travel, you aren't protected if you misconnect either!
And aside from timing of one train leaving, there are express Shinkansen trains that overtake local shinkansen trains at minor stops, I would think it’s not trivial to propagate delays to these timings.
I'm still struggling to understand why accepting bicycles for travel would necessarily introduce "[a] logistical nightmare and delays".
This is such a weird hill to die on. As another commenter said, watching the boarding process would make it obvious that it’s not easy to allow bikes beyond the current method of letting them on in a bike bag as luggage (works fine by the way, I’ve personally done it).
I was just taking a train in Europe yesterday thinking about this comment thread. The train left a few minutes late from the starting station and each stop was 3-4 minutes. That simply doesn’t work with a headway of 5-10 minutes. The Shinkansen stops for like one minute, and on a busy train it takes a few more minutes to actually get everyone seated. If you have large luggage, the social norm is to stand with it between cars until everyone else boards, so you don’t block them. This works with a bike in a bag, but I can’t imagine a fully assembled bike being there.
I think I would bore you writing it all out but my point is just that there is no room for the bike within the train or the social process of participating in the train service. More than one bike and it wouldn't work, so no bikes.
Q: How does it work for passengers in wheelchairs?
(That is a genuine question, I was recently travelling by tram in Basel, Switzerland, and along with another random stranger pitched in to assist an elderly woman in a wheelchair who was struggling to board, partner wasn't strong enough to manage on his own. The tram doors were nice and wide, but given the height difference between the tram and the platform, a ramp sure would have helped...)
Japan in general has a lot of challenges for wheelchairs, there are places that you just couldn't go, or live in, and infrastructure you can't use.
A lot of Japan's infrastructure was built in the 80s and 90s, before there as many regulations about accessiblity. Especially things like walkway bridges and pathways. Lots of stairs. Houses are very often split level townhouses with staircases. I am sure it's getting better.
It's hard to explain how excellent the punctuality is, it essentially wastes none of your time. You don't sit at junctions, you don't have to wait for a platform to free up, you never miss your train because it left early.
Everyone is already lined up by their respective cars, ready to board the moment the train is available to board. So within 5-10 minutes, your train has arrived, people have disembarked, you have boarded, and your train has left. Remembering this is an intercity train network, so it'd be like being able to arrive at the airport with your ticket, board the plane, and take off, within 10 minutes.
Isn't this pretty standard SOP for how long-distance trains stop at intermediate stations around the world?
I've recently travelled in Germany and Austria and their ICE and Railjet trains, respectively, have stops of only 2-3 minutes at a majority of intermediate stations.
It's called "dwell time" if you want to Google, but in Europe I'd guess
- at many stations it's around 1 minute
- at large towns it can be 2-3 minutes, especially if it's likely many people will board/alight
- at the very largest through stations it can be 5-10 minutes. That would be somewhere you might expect half the passengers (or more) to change, like Berlin or Madrid.
Metro and commuter trains have more doors to make boarding/alighting faster. Long-distance trains have fewer doors to make the interior quieter and more comfortable.
(From experience) I would suspect it's more about train crew changes, restocking the restaurant car, and/or allowing extra time to recover from any delays.
I don't believe this requirement is specific to the shinkansen, to Japan, or even to travelling by train.
One of their goals is to strive for such efficiency and punctuality so that the service is better overall, and so in your original comment I guess the answer is both that things would fall apart if the timing got messed up, and also that it's part of the reputation and one of the goals of their service.
It's worth noting that JR is a series of privatized companies, which is notable because they're profitable as well. I imagine efficiency plays a pretty big role in that too.
What happens if someone in a wheelchair wants to travel?
> One of their goals is to strive for such efficiency and punctuality so that the service is better overall [..]
Well, unless you happen to want to travel with a bicycle, that is.
Punctuality is great, but punctuality above all else can't help but have consequences, and some of those might be quite significant negatives for some travellers.
> It's worth noting that JR is a series of privatized companies, which is notable because they're profitable as well
No snark intended, and I know very little about Japan or its railways, but as with so many things, if you can persuade someone else to pay for the construction of your infrastructure then profitability is significantly easier:
"The costs for construction of new high-speed railway (except Chuo Shinkansen which is mainly paid by JR Central) are shared by national government and local governments along the line. National government pays 2/3 of construction costs, local governments bear the rest of it." ( https://www.mlit.go.jp/kokusai/itf/policy_001.html )
And you can take a bike, it’s just has to be in a bag. Inside the bag, you’re supposed to have the front wheel and pedals removed (in practice people don’t remove pedals), and the handlebars turned 90 degrees. It works fine so what you’re really arguing is for tolerating delays, reducing capacity and inconveniencing everyone else just to make it extra convenient to bring a bike on board. It’s like arguing that you should be able to bring your bike on as a carry-on in a flight.
A single bike in isolation, maybe, but a proper bike rack (as seen on many European trains) can fit several bikes in that same space; furthermore you might be able to use space that isn't suitable for carrying passengers (e.g. the UK HSTs carry bicycles in the crumple zones where it wouldn't be safe for passengers to be).
> When you consider that, taking a bike on a train is decidedly environmentally unfriendly.
That's going a bit far; even if we assume it really is displacing three or four other people, three or four people's worth of train emissions on an electric train like this is still comfortably less than one car making the same journey.
[1] is used in Britain, but it's a Japanese (Hitachi) design. The very front of the train (see the bottom section "Liveries") shows the front half of the first unit has blanked-out windows. That's where there's room for a couple of bicycles, a drinks trolley, etc. Obviously including this space has reduced the total number of seats.
If you want to take a bicycle you must reserve the space, and you're expected to be waiting at the correct end of the train so you can board quickly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
[2] https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitachi-rail-global/images/cla...
Framing it like that, taking a suitcase on the train is environmentally unfriendly. Or taking your own body on it.
The alternative to taking your bike on the train may be that you hail a taxi on the other end of the ride rather than ride to your destination. Or that you choose to drive to your destination so you can put the bike in a bike-rack on your car, rather than take public transit.
It's not as clear-cut as "decidedly environmentally unfriendly" to me at least.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fe7LjTABOkA/UlebTVDjtTI/AAAAAAAAc...
If you can't view the image, visualize a train compartment with rows of seats with a shared table in between them. If there isn't a table, then the back of the seats are facing each other, and it's a perfect spot to fit a folding bike.
Unfortunately, the bike has to be engineered for it. The more expensive Brompton fits, but my cheap one doesn't.
But people do need to travel with their pets sometimes; consider moving to a new house far enough away such that it requires air travel. I would not consent to putting my cats in the cargo hold; I've heard enough horror stories about the conditions they experience (not to mention incidence of death, injury, or loss) there to allow that. I read that there used to be a "pet airline" in the US, but they had very limited routes and destinations, and haven't flown in many years at this point.
At the end of the day you have to sometimes make sacrifices for your choices. This is one of those times.
You're right - and that sacrifice should be to put your dog in the cargo hold, or don't travel with them. Or if you really need to sit next to your pet for the entire journey, rent a car and just drop it off at your new location - it's very straightforward.
My personal preference would be zero children, zero dogs, only well behaved cats, but I realize that's a niche flight preference, but on a route with hundreds of flights a week, one flight a week (or even one a month) should be easy to fill.
It would suck if public transport became a no-go or much less pleasant option for me and many others because our comfort is prioritised as less important than a dogs.
People shouldn't be on public transportation primarily because enough people have shown they are unable to respect other people.
I would want everyone bringing a dog on a train to be in that same level of control, and judging by the people and dogs I see out walking that’s an unreasonable wish.
However, from what I saw in America during the pandemic and before, the vast majority of American dogs would not.
That said, the bigger problems I see here are 1) how to deal with the bathroom problems (train trips last hours, and dogs don't hold it in very well), and 2) how to deal with peoples' allergies, and 3) how to deal with people just not wanting to ride near other peoples' animals. I think it's an insurmountable problem really, unless there's SO much demand that they can dedicate a whole train car to being pet-friendly (not likely). We already have ways of moving pets around: taxis and cars. Inside a city, just use a taxi. If you need to travel between cities, just rent a car. Yes, it's a lot of money, but if you can't afford that, then you can't afford a dog. Or just leave the dog at home. (If it's a cat, the cat doesn't want to take a trip with you anywhere.)
(edit) Finally, I just did a little research, and this isn't really a problem at all. You can already bring dogs and cats on trains here, both the intercity Shinkansen and the local trains. The catch is that it needs to be a small dog (or cat), and inside a carrier, weighing a total of 10kg or less. It looks like there's a small fee (less than $5) for the Shinkansen. So I don't see why any of this is necessary; it's a solved problem.
If they have a large dog, they should already own a car. Apartments in Tokyo do NOT allow large dogs, and anyone living outside the city should already have a car anyway. If you can't afford a car, you can't afford a large dog.
I live in Tokyo; there's almost no large dogs here. Having a large dog is a luxury.
> I live in Tokyo; there's almost no large dogs here. Having a large dog is a luxury.
Which I find sad that we've basically internalised and made it a normalcy. The same and even more so goes to having kids. Having a dog (or a pet, more generally) shouldn't be a luxury, because it gives one a better life (having kids even more so, but as I don't have any I can't comment on that).
You can have one or the other. Owning a dog is a ridiculous luxury for ultra-wealthy people; go back 150 years and this was exactly the case, but now somehow people have come to expect it.
>Having a dog (or a pet, more generally) shouldn't be a luxury, because it gives one a better life (having kids even more so, but as I don't have any I can't comment on that).
No, it really doesn't. It's horrible for the environment, and it's bad for society and is a disruption and inconvenience to people around you. The idea that dogs should be commonplace is utterly ridiculous and downright offensive, and similar to the idea that carrying guns should be commonplace and normal. And then you compare it to having kids. Do you realize how many children are maimed, disfigured, and killed every year by pet dogs?