What should be considered 'Inter-City' under GBR?

[Bletchleyite]

i dont see why they would completly get rid of anytime tickets, its a big cash cow. The LNER trial is about getting rid of the regulated off peak fares

Long distance Anytime fares are over the contactless limit, mostly. And too expensive for most people anyway.

 

[signed]

i dont see why they would completly get rid of anytime tickets, its a big cash cow. The LNER trial is about getting rid of the regulated off peak fares

Then contactless can't be a thing on Intercity. You would get some very negative feedback from people being charged £200 for an Anytime single, when the advertised ticket price for an Advance online is like £50.

If you don't tap out, then you would be hit with a £200 to £300 maximum fare, even on the smallest ride. If you put the max fare at like £50, then people would be so happy to fail to tap to have a Anytime London-Edinburgh for £50

 

[HSTEd]

Long distance Anytime fares are over the contactless limit, mostly. And too expensive for most people anyway.

All but urban and periurban fares are going to be too expensive for contactless to be practical the way things are going.
The fine for failing to tap out caps the fares that can be charged, and there are a lot of fares that are well above £50 even on journeys not traditionally considered to be long distance.

If you are going to make tap-in-tap-out a major way of paying on the railway you have to take an axe to the fares anyway.

Which would mean a unit not very good at anything!

And yet this has been the direction rail has been moving for most of a century!

Indeed, if privatisation had not occurred its likely that Sprinters/Networker Turbo family trains would be the only diesel passenger stock on the railway today.
Increasingly there seems to be only two real stock types - urban trains and ex-urban trains. Capitalstar or other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All but urban and periurban fares are going to be too expensive for contactless to be practical the way things are going.
The fine for failing to tap out caps the fares that can be charged, and there are a lot of fares that are well above £50 even on journeys not traditionally considered to be long distance.

If you are going to make tap-in-tap-out a major way of paying on the railway you have to take an axe to the fares anyway.

Depends what you mean by "take an axe to". What's happened for Oval on the south WCML is just a return to the two-step fare structure that existed before London Midland's tenure with the singles priced at half the returns and evening restrictions on the Off Peak which there were back then too. There were mass complaints when there was a move to the three step structure as the Super Off Peak is applicable to very few journeys so most people ended up paying more - so with this change most people will pay less and I've heard no local complaining at all.

You don't necessarily have to have a fine for failing to tap out - the more practical way is simply to permanently ban a card if you do it more than a couple of times. Yes, that means someone gets away with a couple of fares, but people aren't going to keep reporting cards lost/stolen over and over again just to dodge fares, there are far easier ways, particularly as you can at least in theory identify someone from their card details if wishing to prosecute.

Indeed, if privatisation had not occurred its likely that Sprinters/Networker Turbo family trains would be the only diesel passenger stock on the railway today.
Increasingly there seems to be only two real stock types - urban trains and ex-urban trains. Capitalstar or other.

I very much doubt that. There would have been an HST replacement too - you wouldn't have been running XC and GWR mainline services with Sprinters. What was used for those might have been a variant, but then so is the 158 vs the 150 - they're both Sprinters but they're hardly similar, one's for branch lines (though was misused for longer distance stuff in the early days) and one's a true "long thin" long distance unit.

The 170 is probably as good a "jack of all trades" as you get, but you wouldn't put one on Euston-Holyhead with a straight face.

 

[Transilien]

Should TFW's MK4 services be included as 'Intercity'? They have rolling stock more suited to an Intercity style service but the service itself is not very Intercity itself.

 

[HSTEd]

You don't necessarily have to have a fine for failing to tap out - the more practical way is simply to permanently ban a card if you do it more than a couple of times. Yes, that means someone gets away with a couple of fares, but people aren't going to keep reporting cards lost/stolen over and over again just to dodge fares, there are far easier ways, particularly as you can at least in theory identify someone from their card details if wishing to prosecute.

That might work, but I could see no end of arguments over photogenic groups complaining on TV or in the press about having their cards locked as a result!

I very much doubt that. There would have been an HST replacement too - you wouldn't have been running XC and GWR mainline services with Sprinters. What was used for those might have been a variant, but then so is the 158 vs the 150 - they're both Sprinters but they're hardly similar, one's for branch lines (though was misused for longer distance stuff in the early days) and one's a true "long thin" long distance unit.

I expect the loco hauled (non HST) XC services probably would have gone to 100mph Turbostar/Sprinter type jobs, given that they were sub 100mph anyway, they'd follow the earlier services that were converted from loco haulage by the Express Sprinter. I believe Virgin XC ran Sprinters for a substantial time after privatisation as it was.

I will grant you the HST however, although I guess that depends on what you think alternate reality BR has done by now in terms of electrification!

The 170 is probably as good a "jack of all trades" as you get, but you wouldn't put one on Euston-Holyhead with a straight face.

Well people did do things like that in the early days of privatisation.
We have quite recently run trains of near length with trains very similar to Turbostars (see the long TPE drags up the ECML in the Class 185 era), so I'm not sure its unreasonable to put them on Holyhad-EUston.

 

[signed]

Should TFW's MK4 services be included as 'Intercity'? They have rolling stock more suited to an Intercity style service but the service itself is not very Intercity itself.

Cardiff to Manchester is definitely Intercity, Cardiff to Holyhead probably not, though that's probably irrelevant as TfW will likely be still be a thing under GBR

 

[Transilien]

We have quite recently run trains of comparable length with trains very similar to Turbostars (see the long TPE drags up the ECML in the TPE era), so I'm not sure its unreasonable to put them on HOlyhad-EUston.

The difference between TPE and London-Holyhead is that TPE doesn't go to London which means that TPE won't get as good trains because it's 'the north'. It's the same reason that Pacers never ran in the South East, there is always a bias to London services being the best.

 

[A S Leib]

Cardiff to Manchester is definitely Intercity, Cardiff to Holyhead probably not, though that's probably irrelevant as TfW will likely be still be a thing under GBR

Whilst Chiltern's Birmingham services wouldn't be InterCity either, especially as e.g. there's only one Marylebone – Birmingham which is nonstop through High Wycombe before 16:00, and that one (07:35) is a 168 calling at Haddenham & Thame Parkway and Kings Sutton.

They'd also be the second-slowest of four direct routes between London and Birmingham once HS2's open, and closer in time to the LNR services than to Avanti.

 

[signed]

Whilst Chiltern's Birmingham services wouldn't be InterCity either, especially as e.g. there's only one Marylebone – Birmingham which is nonstop through High Wycombe before 16:00, and that one (07:35) is a 168 calling at Haddenham & Thame Parkway and Kings Sutton.

They'd also be the second-slowest of four direct routes between London and Birmingham once HS2's open, and closer in time to the LNR services than to Avanti.

Calling pattern need to be taken into account when sorting service level

On London-Birmingham :

- Chiltern could be qualified as a Regional
- LNR Regional Express
- And the rest of Avanti, would be either Intercity and whatever High Speed Brand is chosen for HS2

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should TFW's MK4 services be included as 'Intercity'? They have rolling stock more suited to an Intercity style service but the service itself is not very Intercity itself.

I'd say those services are comparable to the sort of one or two train pair ICs you get in Germany e.g. the Hamburg-Berchtesgaden, so yes.

- Chiltern could be qualified as a Regional
- LNR Regional Express

Chiltern and LNR operate a very similar service on the Birmingham trains. Both would be REs in German terms, with the RB being the local trains nearer London e.g. the MKC stopper.

 

[A S Leib]

RB being the local trains nearer London e.g. the MKC stopper.

And WMR Stratford / Birmingham International services, or would they come under suburban services instead, alongside Watford DC* at the London end?

*Are TfL rail services and Merseyrail being folded into GBR?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And WMR Stratford / Birmingham International services, or would they come under suburban services instead, alongside Watford DC* at the London end?

*Are TfL rail services and Merseyrail being folded into GBR?

I could see sense in having an equivalent of S-bahn for those. They're basically identical to the German concept for that type of service. CityRail or something?

I suspect those won't become part of GBR. I know the LCR wants (in due time) something more like Metrolink, i.e. their own toys to play with - the sticking point being having to pay for them in full.

 

[Transilien]

I could see sense in having an equivalent of S-bahn for those. They're basically identical to the German concept for that type of service. CityRail or something?

I suspect those won't become part of GBR. I know the LCR wants (in due time) something more like Metrolink, i.e. their own toys to play with - the sticking point being having to pay for them in full.

Perhaps GBR (at least for London) takes over the concession for TFL services allowing integration of all London rail services into the TFL fold.

 

[eldomtom2]

We arent as geographically big as Japan (or Germany or whoever we are getting compared too) , i think thats the thing lots of people are missing. We dont have any "super limited express" services other than Lumo which is its own Ryantrain thing

In Japan the local/rapid/express/limited express distinctions can be found on lines shorter than the BML - look at the many private railways around the Tokyo area, for instance.

 

[H&I]

If the LNER trial is to be followed by GBR (and there is little to say otherwise), the direction of current UK (and other) rail is toward dynamic pricing and reserved-only Advance ticket.

Walk-up tickets, on the biggest relations, may well be scrapped with GBR we don't know. So contactless would be just irrelevant on those relations

How does that square with the planned expansion of contactless PAYG to Stevenage? I think passengers travelling between London and Stevenage would appreciate being able to use that on intercity LNER services rather than stick to Thameslink. Under GBR, would passengers travelling with contactless PAYG be banned from travelling on intercity GWR services to Reading and be forced to travel on slower Elizabeth line services?

 

[JLH4AC]

I would say all long distance express services should be considered InterCity trains, stopping trains that travel into well into another region should considered InterRegio (Or comparable brand) trains.

And yet this has been the direction rail has been moving for most of a century!

Indeed, if privatisation had not occurred its likely that Sprinters/Networker Turbo family trains would be the only diesel passenger stock on the railway today.
Increasingly there seems to be only two real stock types - urban trains and ex-urban trains. Capitalstar or other.

The Networker and Sprinter orders that were suspended due to the impact of the 1990s recession would suggest that BR would continue their practice of specifying multiple class variants within a design family to meet different service/design requirements they set so if privatisation had not occurred it is likely that we would see various Turbostar/Electrostar classes with notably different seating arrangements and passenger facilities. The InterCity sector also strongly favoured loco-hauled trains so I would imagine it is probable that the 90/100 mph diesel loco-hauled trains would just be converted to pull-push and the mark 2 carriages swapped out for mark 3/4s as they are released from elsewhere, or be replaced with HSTs as they are released by electrification.

*Are TfL rail services and Merseyrail being folded into GBR?

The new transport minister has confirmed that TFL rail services and Merseyrail will be excluded from the GBR takeover.

 

[Mgameing123]

Open access operators wouldn't be included in this GBR nomenclature, so Lumo is a distraction.

But yes, I would support the idea of the faster London-Edinburgh train being "Intercity" whilst the slower one (with more stops) is "Inter-Regional". If journey times are broadly equal, then they would both be Intercity.

Let me introduce you to the Danish system. We have Intercity [IC] and Intercity Lyn [ICL] . Intercity is like your definition of Interregional. It’s a slower express trains with quite a lot of stops but still much faster than a regional train. Then you have Intercity Lyn which is Danish for Intercity Lightning which are the fast services that you call Intercity. We also have a ICL+ which are very fast. Stopping only at Odense between Aarhus and Copenhagen.

Perhaps the UK could learn from this?

 

[Manutd1999]

An "Intercity Express" brand could be quite useful.

Taking LNER as an example, it makes sense for all LNER ops to be Intercity so that the rolling stock can be used flexibly etc.

However, there is a big difference between the London-Lincoln and London-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh services.
Maybe that's where the Intercity Express branding could be useful? Same rolling stock and service level, but with a tweak to differentiate the fastest services and enable fare premiums.

You could apply the same logic to regional services. Semi-fasts could become "Regional Express", often using the same rolling stock as the stoppers but with an acknowledgement that there is a difference in journey time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Latter day BR did use a few RE type brands, eg Alphaline for 158 operated services and NorthWest Express for the green stripe 156s.

ICE might indeed make some sense - maybe that and that alone could have the LNER fare system? So a fully market priced super fast hourly KX-Edinburgh calling at Newcastle and Edinburgh only?

 

[Transilien]

An "Intercity Express" brand could be quite useful.

Would there be a difference in service compared to a normal Intercity train?

 

[signed]

An "Intercity Express" brand could be quite useful.

Intercity Express would likely benefit from being applied only to HS1/2 services, unless you add a specific brand for those

 

[Wolfie]

I think "intercity rail" is a concept that is well-known worldwide and is separate from the former BR InterCity sector. The division between intercity rail and regional/commuter rail, even if not explicitly called that, can be seen everywhere from the US to France to India.
Using the fairly simple and commonly used definition of "intercity rail" as "services focused on connecting major urban areas across longer distances", the operators of intercity rail in the UK are fairly easy to identify - these are the ones I'd call "intercity":

• Avanti West Coast
• Caledonian Sleeper
• Chiltern Railways (London-Birmingham services)
• CrossCountry
• East Midlands Railway (EMR Intercity services)
• Eurostar
• Grand Central
• Greater Anglia (London-Norwich services)
• GWR (former Great Western franchise services)
• Hull Trains
• LNER
• Lumo
• ScotRail (Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness services)
• TransPennine Express

Simple, huh? If Chiltern Railways London to Birmingham is "InterCity" but mostly uses DMUs why isn't LNWR London to Birmingham or Birmingham to Liverpool which use EMUs?

 

[Transilien]

Intercity Express would likely benefit from being applied only to HS1/2 services, unless you add a specific brand for those

HS1 services aren't Intercity in my opinion however, Eurostar is but that won't be a part of GBR. Southeastern HS1 services are more like Regional Express in my opinion like the TERGV in northern France.

 

[Manutd1999]

Would there be a difference in service compared to a normal Intercity train?

I don't think so, only in journey time.

It would mainly be used as an easy way of identifying the fastest services and potentially charging a premium for that.

 

[43096]

HS1 services aren't Intercity in my opinion however, Eurostar is but that won't be a part of GBR.

Eurostar is EuroCity as opposed to InterCity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simple, huh? If Chiltern Railways London to Birmingham is "InterCity" but mostly uses DMUs why isn't LNWR London to Birmingham or Birmingham to Liverpool which use EMUs?

Chiltern is not an InterCity service. It is a secondary route near enough exactly the same in concept to LNR bar being diesel.

On TPE I would say only the Liverpool to Newcastle expresses are IC. The rest is middle tier or regional.

 

[A S Leib]

On TPE I would say only the Liverpool to Newcastle expresses are IC. The rest is middle tier or regional

Manchester Airport – Scotland not being IC would solve the issue of Lockerbie and Penrith otherwise only having IC services.

I don't think there's any difference between Newcastle – Edinburgh / Liverpool TPE services beyond the fact that TPE's the stopping service between Morpeth and Dunbar whilst Chester-le-Street's the only extra station between NCL and LIV, especially from December when most of the Northallerton calls are dropped from Newcastle services.

 

[SamCam]

Manchester Airport – Scotland not being IC would solve the issue of Lockerbie and Penrith otherwise only having IC services.

I don't think there's any difference between Newcastle – Edinburgh / Liverpool TPE services beyond the fact that TPE's the stopping service between Morpeth and Dunbar whilst Chester-le-Street's the only extra station between NCL and LIV, especially from December when most of the Northallerton calls are dropped from Newcastle services.

Manchester/Liverpool to Edinburgh/Glasgow seems pretty clearly intercity to me. Yes, some of the intermediate stops are small towns, but there aren't that many intermediate stops in total. The end destinations, total journey time/distance and service levels provided by TPE fit most of the above descriptions well.

 

[Wolfie]

Chiltern is not an InterCity service. It is a secondary route near enough exactly the same in concept to LNR bar being diesel.

On TPE I would say only the Liverpool to Newcastle expresses are IC. The rest is middle tier or regional.

I agree. I was questioning a post which said otherwise.