Update April 2018-Crossrail and Cycle carriage policy

[Bletchleyite]

Or just make people pay for self-inflicted conditions.

Dangerous, slippery slope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

...so maybe there is an argument for health insurance to be arranged through private companies who will make sure that their premiums are consistent with their eating and mobility habits?

You can keep that, thanks. It is the mark of a civilised country to have healthcare free at the point of use, paid for based on affordability through your life, delivered based on need at the point of that need. (I care not what delivery method is used, FWIW; I think the social insurance model is in many ways better than what we have).

The USA is not, in this regard, anywhere near being a civilised country.

 

[AM9]

...so maybe there is an argument for health insurance to be arranged through private companies who will make sure that their premiums are consistent with their eating and mobility habits?

My comment was more in response to the supposition that cyclists have greater carbon footprints than passengers in an electric car. Those whose lives are more sedentary (leisure or work) are according to current medical thinking, are more likely to need long term care, which I suggest costs much more energy than cycling.

 

[Via Bank]

My comment was more in response to the supposition that cyclists have greater carbon footprints than passengers in an electric car. Those whose lives are more sedentary (leisure or work) are according to current medical thinking, are more likely to need long term care, which I suggest costs much more energy than cycling.

Quite.

The claim posted further up the thread that cycling carries a higher carbon footprint than train travel would only be within the realms of reality if:

1. The trains were all electric and all the traction (and auxiliary) power came solely from zero-emission sources, i.e. renewable or nuclear;
2. The hypothetical train passenger lives adjacent to the railway station, or walks there, and never drives, busses or takes a taxi to the station;
3. The hypothetical train passenger lived off lentils grown in their own garden, and the hypothetical cyclist eats red meat four times a day, all delivered to their door by car.

More worryingly, the whole post (which I won't dig out - frankly I have better things to do with my life) betrays that the poster has an appalling attitude towards people who cycle. This is the kind of attitude I and virtually every other regular (and occasional) cyclist in the UK encounters frequently on the roads. The kind of attitude that conditions motorists to not care about cutting me up without indicating; to think it's OK to honk and then overtake leaving mere inches of between me, and their car pelting past over the speed limit; to feel empowered to say "you cyclists are militant, you never admit when you're wrong" when called out on their incompetent driving; to say "I didn't see her" or "he should've been wearing a helmet!" if their own carelessness hurts or kills someone.

Sorry for the rant, but I am bloody sick of seeing this attitude towards vulnerable road users every. single. day. It's particularly galling to see this come from people who claim to be pro-rail, and pro-sustainable transport. If you want to see fewer people travelling by car, why on earth spend your time patronising and demonising people who travel by bike? Particularly when they are many times less likely than a private motorist to kill someone?

And most importantly, I resent this poster's insinuation that cyclists (apparently a massive, homogenous group) want their rights to trump everyone else's.

Twaddle. There is something desperately wrong with our society when you're accused of wanting preferential treatment if you suggest you'd like to be able to get home without fearing for your life, or if you suggest it might be nice if rail operators provided adequate space to meet demand for cycle travel.

 

[gallafent]

There is something desperately wrong with our society when you're accused of wanting preferential treatment if you suggest you'd like to be able to get home without fearing for your life, or if you suggest it might be nice if rail operators provided adequate space to meet demand for cycle travel.

Absolutely. I had the good fortune to visit Copenhagen earlier this year. Cycle provision on the trains (metro, suburban, and regional and intercity trains) is excellent, free, and well used. There is space to park tens of bikes on each suburban or regional train, for example, just walk it in and park it, no faffing around with separate cycle storage compartments with no direct passenger access to the train leading to extended dwell times and plentiful hassle (thankfully about to be superseded at GWR at least, as I understand it the IETs' cycle spaces are distributed down the train and accessed from the normal passenger doors …). In Copenhagen, the design of the city's streets, and its public transport systems, leads to very high use of cycles + public transport, with consequent reduced congestion and pollution, and the side-effect of making the buses able to traverse the city efficiently, etc.

It's a completely different experience to any British city. It is possible to make incremental changes in that direction, though, and I'm hoping that Oxford (where I live) will be moving in that direction. It certainly needs to.

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/arti...ll_entrances_to_oxford_as_statement_of_intent

“In 2011, 17 per cent of commuters cycled to work in Oxford. The aim, through incremental changes over time, is to replicate the success of Oxford’s twinned city Leiden, where 70 per cent of people commute by bicycle.

“The draft Vision 2050, which residents will be able to have their say on later this year, states that Oxford will have safe and accessible cycling routes for commuters, and substantial parts of the city centre will be traffic free for large parts of the day.”

2050 is an awfully long way off, and I rue the lack of ambition in that sense, but still, it seems a hopeful plan. With luck and a fair wind it will produce some exemplary improvements rather sooner, and thus provide impetus for other cities to improve infrastructure in the same way.

Decent cycle provision on trains is a pivotal component of a much bigger and more complex sustainable transport system.

 

[coppercapped]

Absolutely. I had the good fortune to visit Copenhagen earlier this year. Cycle provision on the trains (metro, suburban, and regional and intercity trains) is excellent, free, and well used. There is space to park tens of bikes on each suburban or regional train, for example, just walk it in and park it, no faffing around with separate cycle storage compartments with no direct passenger access to the train leading to extended dwell times and plentiful hassle (thankfully about to be superseded at GWR at least, as I understand it the IETs' cycle spaces are distributed down the train and accessed from the normal passenger doors …). In Copenhagen, the design of the city's streets, and its public transport systems, leads to very high use of cycles + public transport, with consequent reduced congestion and pollution, and the side-effect of making the buses able to traverse the city efficiently, etc.

It's a completely different experience to any British city. It is possible to make incremental changes in that direction, though, and I'm hoping that Oxford (where I live) will be moving in that direction. It certainly needs to.

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/arti...ll_entrances_to_oxford_as_statement_of_intent

“In 2011, 17 per cent of commuters cycled to work in Oxford. The aim, through incremental changes over time, is to replicate the success of Oxford’s twinned city Leiden, where 70 per cent of people commute by bicycle.

“The draft Vision 2050, which residents will be able to have their say on later this year, states that Oxford will have safe and accessible cycling routes for commuters, and substantial parts of the city centre will be traffic free for large parts of the day.”

2050 is an awfully long way off, and I rue the lack of ambition in that sense, but still, it seems a hopeful plan. With luck and a fair wind it will produce some exemplary improvements rather sooner, and thus provide impetus for other cities to improve infrastructure in the same way.

Decent cycle provision on trains is a pivotal component of a much bigger and more complex sustainable transport system.

This debate is going off at a tangent again. See my post No. 112. Copenhagen is a lovely city in a beautiful setting, but the population of the urban area is only about 1 1/4 million. London - the thread started with a discussion of Crossrail's position regarding bicycles - is well over eight million. The transport situations of the two places cannot be directly compared - allowance has to be made for differences in employment patterns, business mix and geography to name but three.

And even in another city, Munich, of a similar size to Copenhagen, bicycles are not permitted on the S-Bahn at all in the peak periods. And Munich has a very well developed network of bicycle routes around and through the city. I know, I used to cycle 40 minutes to work (when snow wasn't lying) of which only a couple of hundred yards was along normal roads.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This debate is going off at a tangent again.

This thread does seem to do that a lot I'm also seeing quite lot of hyperbole on both sides.

Can we all agree that...

1. We don't yet know what Crossrail's policy will be. There's been a suggestion that the whole pretext of this thread is based on a very out-of-date document that doesn't represent any actual current proposed policy by TfL.
2. Given how crowded trains will be probably be all day in central London, it's understandable if taking cycles on trains is banned at all times in that section. It would be harder to justify (and possibly more objectionable) if cycles on trains were banned off-peak West of Paddington or East of Canary Wharf, but we have no idea whether that will happen anyway.
3. There are numerous reasons why it would be better in general if more people cycled, and if the Government did more to discourage driving and encourage cycling/public transport use.
4. Lots of cyclists (but not all cyclists) and lots of motorists (but not all motorists) cycle/drive in ways that are inconsiderate or dangerous to other road users. More should be done to clamp down on that - and also to educate people in considerate road use - on all sides.
5. The merits or otherwise of the US health care system has only the most tenuous link with the merits or otherwise of taking cycles on Crossrail trains.
6. Chocolate is delicious.

 

[tbtc]

This debate is going off at a tangent again. See my post No. 112. Copenhagen is a lovely city in a beautiful setting, but the population of the urban area is only about 1 1/4 million. London - the thread started with a discussion of Crossrail's position regarding bicycles - is well over eight million. The transport situations of the two places cannot be directly compared - allowance has to be made for differences in employment patterns, business mix and geography to name but three.

And even in another city, Munich, of a similar size to Copenhagen, bicycles are not permitted on the S-Bahn at all in the peak periods. And Munich has a very well developed network of bicycle routes around and through the city. I know, I used to cycle 40 minutes to work (when snow wasn't lying) of which only a couple of hundred yards was along normal roads.

This thread does seem to do that a lot I'm also seeing quite lot of hyperbole on both sides.

Can we all agree that...

1. We don't yet know what Crossrail's policy will be. There's been a suggestion that the whole pretext of this thread is based on a very out-of-date document that doesn't represent any actual current proposed policy by TfL.
2. Given how crowded trains will be probably be all day in central London, it's understandable if taking cycles on trains is banned at all times in that section. It would be harder to justify (and possibly more objectionable) if cycles on trains were banned off-peak West of Paddington or East of Canary Wharf, but we have no idea whether that will happen anyway.
3. There are numerous reasons why it would be better in general if more people cycled, and if the Government did more to discourage driving and encourage cycling/public transport use.
4. Lots of cyclists (but not all cyclists) and lots of motorists (but not all motorists) cycle/drive in ways that are inconsiderate or dangerous to other road users. More should be done to clamp down on that - and also to educate people in considerate road use - on all sides.
5. The merits or otherwise of the US health care system has only the most tenuous link with the merits or otherwise of taking cycles on Crossrail trains.
6. Chocolate is delicious.

Couldn't have put it better myself. (Mmmm, chocolate )

 

[SamYeager]

It is the mark of a civilised country to have healthcare free at the point of use, paid for based on affordability through your life, delivered based on need at the point of that need.

[OT] I'm pretty certain that you have to pay to see the doctor in France so there's another country that's not civilised. Frankly I suspect there are very few countries where healthcare is free at the point of use unless people pay vastly more than we do in this country. [/OT]

 

[coppercapped]

[OT] I'm pretty certain that you have to pay to see the doctor in France so there's another country that's not civilised. Frankly I suspect there are very few countries where healthcare is free at the point of use unless people pay vastly more than we do in this country. [/OT]

It depends on your income. If you are a member of a familie nombreuse or are receiving social security you do not need to pay the doctor. We had ordinary health insurance and paid for a consultation on a scale depending on what investigations the doctor undertook. The amounts were not huge - twenty years ago they could be somewhere between £10 and £30. One sent the receipt to the Mutuel and were reimbursed for some or all of the amount depending on what the treatment was.

If any special investigations were needed, blood tests, X-rays and similar, you go to a walk-in medical centre on the high street rather than to the path. lab or X-ray department in a hospital. Again, you paid and sent the receipt to the Mutuel. This system has the great advantage of reducing the load on the hospitals and made getting to such tests easy for almost everyone. The results were very quick - the doctor could get them the same afternoon. I should add that the medical centres are regulated and inspected and in my experience were run to a high standard. Queues were practically non-existent. Competition works!

The same payment system also exists in Belgium. In neither Belgium or France do you have to be registered with a doctor - you can go to any one you like. More than one in day if you wish, but the Mutuel may not then reimburse all your costs. And you can go straight to a specialist if you wish - it is not necessary to go through a GP first. In Germany there is now a small payment for a consultation with a doctor - it was free until a few years ago, the cost being carried by your insurance co-op of choice - and you have to use the same doctor in any three month period.

The point of all this is that each of these systems is equally 'civilised'. The outcomes of major surgical interventions is similar in the UK, France, Belgium and Germany, but arguably the service offering and aftercare is better in these countries than it is in the UK. The insurance premiums in all these countries are not widely out of kilter with each other or with the NI contributions and other taxes paid here.

In all these countries emergency treatment is free.

 

[BestWestern]

It's the 'floodgates' problem. Unfortunately, cyclists tend to make very inconsiderate rail passengers, and generally have zero regard for limits on numbers, storage locations, safety requirements or quite frankly anything else. If there are 15 bikes on a platform and a train rolls in with space for two, you'll have 15 cyclists barging their way into any available space, whether adequate or not, battering ram style. Staff attempting to instruct them otherwise are frequently met with abuse, sometimes even a physical assault, and this scenario causes significant delays across the network every day. If bikes were allowed on Crossrail, the trains would be awash with them. There would be no realistic means of policing the appropriate safety standards, there would be major issues in the event of an evacuation, and regular issues with extended dwell times. Cyclists on the railway don't do 'respectfully acknowledging rules', they do 'scrum'. Unfortunately, it's a case of either a total free-for-all or none at all, and none at all is the only safe choice.

 

[philthetube]

… and, to bring out an important aspect of this, vegetarian or vegan cyclists probably emit a very large amount less than others (putting aside other important environmental impacts such as water abstraction and land use).

But more methane.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's the 'floodgates' problem. Unfortunately, cyclists tend to make very inconsiderate rail passengers, and generally have zero regard for limits on numbers, storage locations, safety requirements or quite frankly anything else. If there are 15 bikes on a platform and a train rolls in with space for two, you'll have 15 cyclists barging their way into any available space, whether adequate or not, battering ram style. Staff attempting to instruct them otherwise are frequently met with abuse, sometimes even a physical assault, and this scenario causes significant delays across the network every day. If bikes were allowed on Crossrail, the trains would be awash with them. There would be no realistic means of policing the appropriate safety standards, there would be major issues in the event of an evacuation, and regular issues with extended dwell times. Cyclists on the railway don't do 'respectfully acknowledging rules', they do 'scrum'. Unfortunately, it's a case of either a total free-for-all or none at all, and none at all is the only safe choice.

Absolutely.

I can't even believe that cycles on Crossrail would have ever been considered a good idea.

 

[Via Bank]

It's the 'floodgates' problem. Unfortunately, cyclists tend to make very inconsiderate rail passengers, and generally have zero regard for limits on numbers, storage locations, safety requirements or quite frankly anything else. If there are 15 bikes on a platform and a train rolls in with space for two, you'll have 15 cyclists barging their way into any available space, whether adequate or not, battering ram style.

Well, here’s a question.

If people “en masse” would sooner take their bikes on Crossrail from, for instance, Ilford to Whitechapel, or from Old Oak Common to Tottenham Court Road, why could that be?

I, for one, only take a bicycle on a train if I need to make a longer-distance journey, or on occasion for short journeys if I have a mechanical defect (puncture etc.) or for some other reason I literally can not continue cycling.

Whenever I see leisure cyclists only going for a stop or two on a local train, I’m reminded of the number of times I see people driving their own cars, with bicycles strapped to the top. Presumably at some point they will get out of the car/train and ride their bicycle around. So why do they feel the need to involve a car or a train?

Could it be laziness? Or could it be that the surface road routes where you can actually ride your bicycle for free are inadequate, or dangerous?

 

[Clip]

Well, here’s a question.

If people “en masse” would sooner take their bikes on Crossrail from, for instance, Ilford to Whitechapel, or from Old Oak Common to Tottenham Court Road, why could that be?

I, for one, only take a bicycle on a train if I need to make a longer-distance journey, or on occasion for short journeys if I have a mechanical defect (puncture etc.) or for some other reason I literally can not continue cycling.

Whenever I see leisure cyclists only going for a stop or two on a local train, I’m reminded of the number of times I see people driving their own cars, with bicycles strapped to the top. Presumably at some point they will get out of the car/train and ride their bicycle around. So why do they feel the need to involve a car or a train?

Could it be laziness? Or could it be that the surface road routes where you can actually ride your bicycle for free are inadequate, or dangerous?

You really are being very defensive about all this and not wanting to take on board other peoples views at all and its that mentality that does us cyclists a great disservice.


This was yesterday on my way to east Croydon

But I understand not every cyclist is this ignorant just the same as I understand not every motorist is ignorant - maybe you should accept this too instead of writing epic posts trying to justify, I have no idea what, but yeah , that.

 

[Via Bank]

You really are being very defensive about all this and not wanting to take on board other peoples views at all and its that mentality that does us cyclists a great disservice.


This was yesterday on my way to east Croydon

But I understand not every cyclist is this ignorant just the same as I understand not every motorist is ignorant - maybe you should accept this too instead of writing epic posts trying to justify, I have no idea what, but yeah , that.

Umm… hold on. I'm being "ignorant"?

Is it "ignorant" to suggest where some of the (considerable) demand for cycle travel, especially on short distance trains, might be coming from? And is it "ignorant" to suggest that if people could cycle from Victoria to Croydon, or from Ealing to Bond Street, without feeling in danger of being crushed by a lorry, a lot of that demand might well evaporate?

(I can't see the image, by the way - but I assume it's a train, chock-full of bicycles. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, it is unsustainable. Yes, ideally an extra fare should be charged for bicycles. But rail companies should shoulder some of the blame, for advertising bicycle carriage and then failing to cater for demand. And local highways authorities should shoulder some of the blame too, for making it more convenient for people to haul their bike into a packed train than just to ride it to their destination.)

 

[Clip]

Umm… hold on. I'm being "ignorant"?

Is it "ignorant" to suggest where some of the (considerable) demand for cycle travel, especially on short distance trains, might be coming from? And is it "ignorant" to suggest that if people could cycle from Victoria to Croydon, or from Ealing to Bond Street, without feeling in danger of being crushed by a lorry, a lot of that demand might well evaporate?

(I can't see the image, by the way - but I assume it's a train, chock-full of bicycles. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, it is unsustainable. Yes, ideally an extra fare should be charged for bicycles. But rail companies should shoulder some of the blame, for advertising bicycle carriage and then failing to cater for demand. And local highways authorities should shoulder some of the blame too, for making it more convenient for people to haul their bike into a packed train than just to ride it to their destination.)

Well i didnt directly call you ignorant but you are off on a rant about something else that hasnt got any thing to do with Crossrail as a) it is not yet a working railway and b) there has been no firm word whether they will convey cycles or not so why you are ranting about other tocs i have no idea.

seems my pic didnt work last time so here it is again

 

[cjp]

I have had a reply, with apologies for the delay, from Tfl setting out the policy from December 2018 as follows:-

• You will be able to take a folding bicycle on an Elizabeth train anywhere and anytime.
• You will be able to take a non-folding bicycle on the central tunnelled section, between Paddington and Abbey Wood / Stratford, outside the hours of 0730 to 0930 and 1600 to 1900 Mondays to Fridays.
• On weekends and public holidays you can take non-folding bicycles at anytime

The letter goes on to say that

before the line fully opens the existing policies of Tfl Rail will continue to apply on the above ground sections of the Elizabeth line

There are restrictions on LO, albeit only at peak times... "Non-folding bicycles cannot be carried on any London Overground train between 07:30-09:30 and 16:00-19:00, Monday to Friday (except public holidays)."

It then cautions that

From December 2019 there will be slight differences in the start and end times of the non-folding bicycle restrictions. The detailed timings will be announced nearer the time.

So now we know.

To me it seems better than I feared and is generally good news.

Points to beware is that the initial evening restriction is an hour longer than the morning restriction. Do note that it is possible for example if representations are made next year this might be shortened (or lenghtened) so fellow cyclists be good, be careful and behave - and say thank you nicely.

 

[Kite159]

Whatever happens, you can be pretty sure some cyclists will blatantly ignore the restrictions as they think they are better than everybody else and hence the rules don't apply to them

 

[rebmcr]

• You will be able to take a folding bicycle on an Elizabeth train anywhere and anytime.
• You will be able to take a non-folding bicycle on the central tunnelled section, between Paddington and Abbey Wood / Stratford, outside the hours of 0730 to 0930 and 1600 to 1900 Mondays to Fridays.
• On weekends and public holidays you can take non-folding bicycles at anytime

Basically the same restrictions as the Sub Surface lines and the DLR.

 

[matt_world2004]

Whatever happens, you can be pretty sure some cyclists will blatantly ignore the restrictions as they think they are better than everybody else and hence the rules don't apply to them

I hope one day a rail company grows the balls to prosecute in these circumstances

 

[swt_passenger]

Aren't they risking some problems at the central area stations that interchange with the other deep tube lines, the latter having "all day" cycle restrictions?

 

[yorkie]

Whatever happens, you can be pretty sure some cyclists will blatantly ignore the restrictions as they think they are better than everybody else and hence the rules don't apply to them

I don't get your point. Doesn't this apply to almost anything in life?

 

[BluePenguin]

You really are being very defensive about all this and not wanting to take on board other peoples views at all and its that mentality that does us cyclists a great disservice.


This was yesterday on my way to east Croydon

But I understand not every cyclist is this ignorant just the same as I understand not every motorist is ignorant - maybe you should accept this too instead of writing epic posts trying to justify, I have no idea what, but yeah , that.

Well what is wrong with that? Yes, it is blocking the aisle which is slightly annoying to some people. The train is lightly loaded though so I doubt many people minded.

The trouble is on an Electrostar there is literally nowhere to put a bicycle where it wont fall over or get in the way. Leaving it against the doors on the other side of the train is usually the best idea if the cycle and wheelchair area is full. This is what I used to do in my college days when I used to take the train to Ramsgate and cycle to Broadstairs due to there being no through train to get me there from my station before 9am (as is still the case today but that is another matter, and one that is being fixed in the May timetable change).

In contrast, I would never even think about taking a bicycle on the tube at peak time. It is hatd enough to squeeze my slim body inside let alone a bicycle!

 

[Clip]

Well what is wrong with that? Yes, it is blocking the aisle which is slightly annoying to some people. The train is lightly loaded though so I doubt many people minded.

The trouble is on an Electro start there is literally nowhere to put a bicycle where it wont fall over. Leaving it against the doors on the other side of the train is usually the best idea if the cycle and wheelchair area is full.

In contrast, I would never even think about taking a bicycle on the tube at peak time. It is hatd enough to squeeze my slim body inside let alone a bicycle!

Because any sensible cyclist would at least put it in the vestibule/doorway area on the side where the doors wont open as frequently - its a sad that i have to explain it but there you go

 

[DynamicSpirit]

• You will be able to take a folding bicycle on an Elizabeth train anywhere and anytime.
• You will be able to take a non-folding bicycle on the central tunnelled section, between Paddington and Abbey Wood / Stratford, outside the hours of 0730 to 0930 and 1600 to 1900 Mondays to Fridays.
• On weekends and public holidays you can take non-folding bicycles at anytime

An interesting choice, and in some ways more generous than I'd been expecting.

I wonder how that's going to work in practice. One problem that strikes me is with delayed trains. Say you get on a 2:30pm departure from Reading, with a ticket to travel with your cycle to Ilford. Train gets delayed, not reaching Paddington until around 4pm, and as a result, suddenly your cycle is no longer allowed on the train past Paddington, when it would've been allowed if the train had been on time. Probably not a common scenario but could lead to some very unhappy customers. This problem shouldn't normally occur on the rest of the national rail network because restrictions are usually based on scheduled (rather than actual) departure/arrival times.

And even without delays, this restriction leads to the odd effect where you could - say - be allowed on a train as far as Tottenham Court Road - arriving 15:39, and then you have to get off because it'll arrive at Bond Street at 16:01.

But maybe I'm just nitpicking. Designing fair restrictions must be quite hard for a line that runs through the centre - so that contra-peak-flow trains become peak-flow trains in the middle of their journey, and vice versa.

 

[rebmcr]

Train gets delayed, not reaching Paddington until around 4pm, and as a result, suddenly your cycle is no longer allowed on the train past Paddington

A strict interpretation of those rules would mean you are not "taking" your bike onto the train in that scenario, as it is already on board.

In practice, there are no staff patrolling the train — only one in the driving cab and those on barriers and platforms at stations — so it could well end up following that strict interpretation in reality too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

An interesting choice, and in some ways more generous than I'd been expecting.

I wonder how that's going to work in practice. One problem that strikes me is with delayed trains. Say you get on a 2:30pm departure from Reading, with a ticket to travel with your cycle to Ilford. Train gets delayed, not reaching Paddington until around 4pm, and as a result, suddenly your cycle is no longer allowed on the train past Paddington, when it would've been allowed if the train had been on time. Probably not a common scenario but could lead to some very unhappy customers. This problem shouldn't normally occur on the rest of the national rail network because restrictions are usually based on scheduled (rather than actual) departure/arrival times.

And even without delays, this restriction leads to the odd effect where you could - say - be allowed on a train as far as Tottenham Court Road - arriving 15:39, and then you have to get off because it'll arrive at Bond Street at 16:01.

But maybe I'm just nitpicking. Designing fair restrictions must be quite hard for a line that runs through the centre - so that contra-peak-flow trains become peak-flow trains in the middle of their journey, and vice versa.

I think through trains would probably be fine! I think the bigger issue could be the services where people have to change within London. Off the top of my head I can't remember what the diagrams will be regarding the branches, but if you have to change trains onto one going to the other branch, that could get interesting based on the timings / delays etc. I'd hope common sense would be used, but as we have seen before that can sometimes be wishful thinking!

 

[coppercapped]

An interesting choice, and in some ways more generous than I'd been expecting.

I wonder how that's going to work in practice. One problem that strikes me is with delayed trains. Say you get on a 2:30pm departure from Reading, with a ticket to travel with your cycle to Ilford. Train gets delayed, not reaching Paddington until around 4pm, and as a result, suddenly your cycle is no longer allowed on the train past Paddington, when it would've been allowed if the train had been on time.

SNIP

You don't mean to suggest that you want to sit on a Crossrail train all the way from Reading to Ilford?
A 14.30 departure from Reading on an IET will see you in Paddington before 15.00. Change to Crossrail at Paddington and not only your journey be 40 minutes quicker but any delay would have to be very serious for you to miss the 16.00 deadline!

 

[matt_world2004]

You don't mean to suggest that you want to sit on a Crossrail train all the way from Reading to Ilford?
A 14.30 departure from Reading on an IET will see you in Paddington before 15.00. Change to Crossrail at Paddington and not only your journey be 40 minutes quicker but any delay would have to be very serious for you to miss the 16.00 deadline!

A freedom pass will make it a cost effective solution to sit on a train between Reading and Ilford.