Belgium's SNCB/NMBS calls them "multi-functional areas" and I've found it to be generally one carriage of 10 (or the lower deck of a shorter double-decker, or half a carriage of a shorter single-decker). Some double-deckers have low-level exit doors but they can only be opened by the guard. See https://cheeseweb.eu/2015/06/bike-belgian-trains-stepbystep-guide/ although the Liege-Lux service now has carriages with an open area too.

The Netherlands's NS seemed to have thirds of some coaches as open spaces but labels them variously as luggage or 4-bike spaces (despite 6 fitting easily and 8 is possible on most with careful stacking, sometimes more, all with none blocking gangways), causing needless conflict and delay if you've a rules-enforcing guard and a different mix of luggage/bikes/passengers to what the builders expected.

Another option for 16-17 year olds, yet still nothing for single frequent travellers aged 30-60 unless in the blessed south-east? That's the glaring gap and it seems odd that we still don't have an equivalent of DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)'s BahnCard or NS's Voordeel.

Did British Rail never use the practice from some other European countries of attaching the loco for the next journey on the back, uncoupling the previous loco, then pulling the carriages away and once clear, the now-light loco moves off to join the non-buffer end of its next train?

Wouldn't the lack of tilt confine IEPs to lower speeds on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line)?

Other than that, it seems a bit of a shame that First have got another franchise when their current ones don't seem to be working properly and this seems to replicate the GWR/SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) overlap in the north west with only TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) (already First) competing with ICWC^▸ (InterCity West Coast) on some routes, which seems not great for customers.

Shouldn't we consider why that might be and what might have changed? Given that some other train operators have recently ordered new trains with buffets, why is GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) struggling? Could it be something to do with the years-long understaffing and inconsistent service having now damaged reputation to the point where GWR non-premium on-board catering is regarded as only an improbable last-chance Hail Mary when you've failed to buy elsewhere?

At least checked baggage on planes is available on all routes where it's required. Eurostar's checked baggage is only available between London and Paris/Lille/Brussels.

You also have to drop it off 90 minutes before departure, eroding another key selling point of Eurostar - remember, their front page promotes "Two-bag travel allowance and no extra fees" and "Save time and money" as two of their features and this change has weakened both of those - hope the profit from selling more checked baggage is worth it for them!

I hope they called ahead and had the police waiting for him at Paddington. I sometimes travel with a bike and while I think there should be decent bike spaces (which I'd pay a reasonably-priced supplement for, like abroad), there's not much excuse for forcing a full-size bike onto a peak time train under a fairly well-advertised ban.

Why does it matter how many services? And is money needed because aren't the large luggage spaces intended to facilitate carriage of such, well, large luggage?

Do we really want to try charging to force the remaining surfers off the railways and onto the motorways?
Good luck enforcing that sort of law. It now seems like you pretty much have to beg a regulator or charity to support your case. If they get away with this, I suspect they could drop any feature by stealth and it would take months to years to restore the ones required by law, by which time most who need them would have had to find alternatives... but that is getting a bit off-topic here.

And when your bottle of water is empty, then what? There's nowhere to refill on board during the 4 hour journey from Plymouth to Paddington.

To "stock up before departure" adds to the overall journey time, instead of being done on the move. If I wanted to be faffing around trying to find decent food and drink while stopped, I'd drive a car!

It also adds another vulnerability and inconvenience to train travel: if you allow time for lunch at some interchange but arrive delayed inbound, do you miss your connection or go hungry? That's not going to be a great user experience either way and it's completely unnecessary. All it takes is consistent on-board catering on long-distance trains.

Yes and it's that sort of inconsistency which kills the buffets. Many people feel they just can't count on British railway catering. With so many other operators having no catering at all, not even GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s rather random and patchy service, one could argue that we're now in an even worse situation than the 1980s cling-film sandwiches.

The Pullman seems a premium novelty experience more than a mainstream buffet service. It shouldn't really be part of the same discussion IMO^▸ (in my opinion).

Didn't we already try that? I remember the days of GWR being the Intercity operator and suffering Thames Trains, Wales & West, Valley Lines and who remembers what else?

Nothing in that article about bike racks being like bull bars and on second look, there doesn't seem to be anything in your whole message replying to any point I made!

Also, if (and I say it's still unproven) current bike racks are like bull bars, it's surely not beyond the wit of man to invent a bike rack with a pedestrian protection panel on its front. Airbags, even. Short-haul buses are hardly as streamlined as trains to begin with.

I probably shouldn't suggest this, but if they fit in the bike racks, why not just reserve a bike space? Draw a few bike symbols on the bag and claim that it's a bagged bike if anyone asks. Take a luggage strap to strap it to the rails if you feel the need.

If a bike rack is really like bull bars (and I think that's unproven) then either ban both or neither. The current situation is absurd.

Secondly, the reduced risk of collision with a vehicle driven by a higher-qualification driver should be factored in, no matter how much some try to pretend it's irrelevant.

And finally, once a vehicle hits a pedestrian (and that's the way round it usually is to cause injury, not what ellendune wrote!) then the pedestrian has basically lost anyway.

Bus drivers are meant to be trained to a somewhat higher standard than SUV drivers and, as mjones says, plenty of bull bars are in use. As ever, the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) allows the near-useless, but bans things that would help cycling.

Sort of. The obstacle is the DVSA irrationally refusing to approve the front racks permitted in the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, Russia and probably other countries, based on a theoretical danger to pedestrians not realised anywhere the racks have been introduced, and it's illegal to operate them without that approval. So, we're limited to slow and unsafe rear racks or even slower loading/unloading trailers, which makes bikes on buses basically tourist-only.

www.bikesonbuses.com has a lot more info on the problem.