Bicycles

Certainly under Silverlink you weren't "supposed" to bring bikes onto their trains at peak hours (I speak as an inveterate bike-on-train-er) but as the stations were often,to all intents and purposes,unstaffed,this was widely ignored...though enforced by the sheer weight of passengers making boarding with a bike nearly impossible.
I haven't been on the LO lines with my bike so much,but as staffing levels are visibly higher,whatever the rules are,they will be more rigorously enforced.
When I went on the first ELL train with my bike,the staff eyed me suspiciously at both Dalston Jct. and at Shoreditch High Street,but said nary a word.
Though they DID tell us to keep behind the yellow lines.....

I dont think a ban on bicycles should take place anywhere on the rail system. The reason i say this is that people should take their own initiative and use a bit of common sense, why should you be told what you can and cannot do?
If you decide to bring your big mountain bike and think your going to get on the 07.57 from Stratford in the morning, then your Brian isn't obviously engaged.

A question though why do people purchase fold up bikes and then bring them onto the trains without folding them down?

Two or three times, I've witnessed a cyclist pushing his way onto a packed 313 and in one case responding rudely to passenger protests. What kind of man tells an obviously pregnant woman to f*** off simply because she complained about his bicycle knocking into her as he pushed his way on.

No.

A Brompton is heavy enough to make it worthwhile having it unfolded for even relatively short walking distances (e.g. the length of a platform).

Each time you fold a Brompton, it causes the cables to stretch - which means eventually they will snap.

There may also be a pannier on the front full of heavy items, folding up means that's got to be detached and carried in its own right, and also taking up space.

They're fantastic machines, but the limitations described above mean it's good practice to minimise the amount of times it gets folded. Otherwise you could end up folding + unfolding all day long, which greatly increases the maintenance workload (and potential expense).

I do wish people would spend a few moments thinking before hitting the "post" button.

There big issue is when a number of bikes are on the train effectively blocking the exits as this causes 2 main issues.

1. If there was an emergency passengers may not be able to exit the coach.

2. When a train arrives at the station the cyclist, usually grudgingly has to remove his/her bike onto the platform to let passengers exit/board the train.

I travel back to Maidenhead on FGW in the evening rush hour when bikes are allowed on the train - however they are not allowed on the trains in the morning rush hour, the logic of this is?

For Overground services the solution is to bring back the guards van area and put the bikes in there (and charge for it!) - A Class 501 was the ideal EMU in this respect with 2 Brake Vans per 3 car unit (4 in a 6-car formation!)

Xerces Fobe

The logic in the case of FGW will be along the lines that the evening peak is more spread out than the morning, so overall there will be more space on the trains. Some of the stock used at the start of the busy periond can get back into Paddington for a second trip towards the end of the peak, this is much more difficult in the morning.

Xerces fobe has hit the nail on the head on the cycle issue.
I started putting my bike on trains at the time BR made them free (1977??) and,correct me if I'm wrong,but at that time pretty much all stock had a guard's van.(Let's leave LT out of the picture,as I don't believe cycles were allowed on LT services until much later.)
The guard's van was fairly large,with at least one per unit,or one per train on loco-hauled stock (often there was an entire parcels van on these trains).
Cycles were allowed in the guard's van "at the guard's discretion" and I only ever remember being turned down twice.Sometimes a guard would open the "other" guard's van if his one was full (of mail sacks,parcels...even 3-day-old chicks,on one occasion).
There wasn't possibility of conflict with passengers that exists today,and the guards were usually ver easy-going.
From about the mid-70s,all new unit stock (read:virtually all new stock) was specified as having no guard's van.meaning that cycles had to be brought into the saloon.Then things got more complicated for us bikes-on-train people.
I try to be out of the way,moving m bike so it blocks only the door away from the platform as the train arrives at each station....fortunately,my knowledge of station topology is good...but I am aware that this is a second-best situation.
If cycles are to be allowed on trains,some provision should be made for their safe,easy and convenient carriage.Surely that's not too tricky?
And if there are no bikes,the area can be used for standing passengers (as the guard's vans were,too).

I've had to use LO from Gunnersbury to Willesden Junction several times in the evening peaks over the last few weeks and *every single time* the door I entered has been at least partially blocked by a bicycle. In every case *no attempt* was made by the cyclist to move their bike despite the throng of people attempting to pass. On Thursday last I ended up pushing the offending bike to pass it and was told in no uncertain terms by its owner to be careful. My response, crafted in the finest Anglo-Saxon, reminded him of the selfishness he displayed in taking his bike on a packed train, thereby depriving the last half-dozen passengers on the platform the chance to travel with the rest of us. Rather than the invective/slap I had expected in response, I earned a brief round of applause and thanks from several of my fellow sardines.

It struck me afterwards that, if bikes are to continue to be tolerated/allowed on Class 378s, it would be cheap and relatively straightforward to mount some brackets atop the saloon dividers and on the floor so that 2 or 3 bikes could be securely clipped/stored vertically in less floorspace than currently taken by one horizontally. Such a solution would have prevented Thursday's confrontation and led to six more passengers catching their train on time.

THC

The others I can think of were the class 304 (1st generation LM Region ac units) and class 307 (ER 'Southend' units, as modified to ac) both of which had a DTB (in the 307 case, with pantograph) at one end, and a DT at the other.

But for loco worked push pull trains, the converse was true - normally the driving vehicle also had a brake compartment - an exception were the LT Chesham shuttle sets.

You are correct in saying that the 307s only had one brake van - as modified for ac they were DTBS-MS-TC-DTS: the modifications included moving the brake van (with pantograph) from the motor coach.

But the 304s did have two brake vans, being formed DTBS-TC-MBS-DTS (they later lost the TC, become three car units) - the LM region obviously wanted guards nearer the end's of trains than the ER: the 304s had their MBSs arranged with the brake van towards the end of the unit, while those in ER units were the other way round.

As to whether the 501s had the highest proportion of luggage space I couldn't say - I think some of the single brake vans on other units were more than twice the size of those on the 501s, making comparisons difficult.

I stand corrected on the 304 's having 2 brake vans I have to admit I never really noticed that feature and unfortunately I never travelled on a 304 either.

Xerces Fobe