cactustwirly
Established Member
Nope sorry, if it's an Intercity service, then it shows to the passenger that the train will be of a high quality.
Well a 2+2 377(/1 /3) no different right?
Same could be said about the 375s
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is the Midland Mainline considered an "InterCity" route?
- Thread starter irish_rail
- Start date
- Status
Nope sorry, if it's an Intercity service, then it shows to the passenger that the train will be of a high quality.
Well a 2+2 377(/1 /3) no different right?
Same could be said about the 375s
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well, the current service isn't non-stop from Victoria - Brighton (even in late BR times an East Croydon stop was added, whilst now the fasts have even more stops added.
There's no buffet car where one can purchase a bacon butty for example.
There are no first class compartments of sufficiently luxurious appointment to differentiate them from standard.
Seat cushions aren't sufficiently luxurious and armchair like.
Doesn't come close as far as I'm concerned !
I suppose the 442s were the closest they got to "Inter-City" type stock?
Maybe at one time but not today, - which is why services are often operated with whatever is convenient. BR Inter-city used to command higher fares because they branded it as Inter-city, but the demand for rail travel is now not centred around just business/premium travel with 'other' travel being everything else. Many routes have integrated timetables that at times struggle to accommodate enough trains tp meet demand.
Apart from VT which succeeds in pricing some trains up because of VT-only ticket conditions (and they don't run any local services anyway), East Coast services, MML, TPE, XC and GW services don't discriminate between local, regional and long-distance travellers, (except by the fact that many trains don't stop where local passengers are). Most trains on mainline duty are capable of speeds of 100mph or more where line limits permit so the concept of high-speed luxury trains does not exist everywhere so the term is now meaningless.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I guess it does to two types of enthusiast:
- Those stuck in the BR ways of doing things, who can't accept that the standard/ pecking order etc of routes has changed in the past twenty five years (and are hung up on such matters), so the historic staff uniform or whether a service was in a certain timetable booklet thirty years ago must define how it still is now (and ever will be)
- Those who need to see the world in black/white - e.g. a 350 is a 110mph air conditioned train with 2+2 seating (other than the 350/2s) running services like London - Liverpool or Manchester Airport - Edinburgh but will forever be "Outer Suburban" to some people because they can't see beyond the door configuration - so a route is either "InterCity" or "not InterCity" with little nuance or grey areas
Some places (Ramsgate, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth) had InterCity services to Birmingham but no InterCity services to London. Some large cities were significant enough to be on the map but there were plenty of others that didn't. Waverley - Falkirk High - Queen Street services weren't InterCity but Victoria - Gatwick was.
Nothing to do with journey time (or Glasgow - Mallaig would be InterCity, whilst Euston - New Street takes as long as the LUL from Cockfosters to Heathrow).
Personally I think that in 2019 Inter City should be restricted to fully electrified services with a maximum speed of at least 140 mph. Perhaps we could reclassify the trains from London to the North as Regional Expresses?
Top work
Not really. I think it seems to be really hard for some people on this forum to realise but the majority of the public don't care and the only thing they'll notice is if they're squished in a 3+2 configuration, or in a 2+2. I should make it clear this means a 444 is put at the same level as a HST. I for one can say I felt no more comfortable travelling in a HST to Bristol than I did in a 444 to Southampton. An IC service doesn't guarantee quality which is evident from the sheer number of people on here who have a problem with the 80x trains being introduced across many intercity routes across the country which many people actually like. It shows ''quality" is subjective and the MML being branded as intercity or regional doesn't reflect it's quality.
CaledonianBlue
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 51
I guess it does to two types of enthusiast:
InterCity was a good idea but let's not pretend it was perfect or hard/fast. We've already discussed how certain routes had different levels of "InterCity" (e.g. whether they were branded as Shuttle or not) - there was this strange map which meant that some routes were InterCity (e.g. a 158 from Manchester to Edinburgh = Cross Country = InterCity) but not other routes between large cities (a similar 158 linking Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - Newcastle was Regional Railways/ Provincial instead).
- Those stuck in the BR ways of doing things, who can't accept that the standard/ pecking order etc of routes has changed in the past twenty five years (and are hung up on such matters), so the historic staff uniform or whether a service was in a certain timetable booklet thirty years ago must define how it still is now (and ever will be)
- Those who need to see the world in black/white - e.g. a 350 is a 110mph air conditioned train with 2+2 seating (other than the 350/2s) running services like London - Liverpool or Manchester Airport - Edinburgh but will forever be "Outer Suburban" to some people because they can't see beyond the door configuration - so a route is either "InterCity" or "not InterCity" with little nuance or grey areas
Some places (Ramsgate, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth) had InterCity services to Birmingham but no InterCity services to London. Some large cities were significant enough to be on the map but there were plenty of others that didn't. Waverley - Falkirk High - Queen Street services weren't InterCity but Victoria - Gatwick was.
Nothing to do with journey time (or Glasgow - Mallaig would be InterCity, whilst Euston - New Street takes as long as the LUL from Cockfosters to Heathrow).
Top work
Yes it seems the IC brand was to suit a particular context. Geographically - or in common sense terms - Liverpool to Hull or Newcastle is inter-city even if latterly in BR days it was not categorised as such. The interesting thing is not so much the past but what, if anything, a future cross-operator "inter city" designation would usefully mean?
satisnek
Member
Seeing as the Super Off-Peak Return from Derby to London is an eye-watering £66.50, I would say that the MML is very much 'Intercity' as far as fares are concerned (and Chiltern isn't). It would appear that you pay a premium to travel at speeds over 100mph.
Well, they all (other than XC) share London in common and we are trying to differentiate and classify lines - so yes the non-London locations are more important in this discussion obviously...
And again, “Inter City” does not exist.
And the 4Cep/4Beps? I remember that feeling quite Intercityish when I was commuting that way. (I know they only headed down to Pompey in their later years).
Otherwise, I always enjoy Lichfield-Birmingham as an inter-city service...
Intercity seems to refer to "express", perhaps coming from the "Intercity 125" brand.
These days, the express long distance routes appear to be "Intercity" - GWML, WCML, ECML.
GEML, London-Brighton, MML, possibly XC should all be secondary XC routes.
While prices are high on MML, the differences between First Class and Standard are akin to that on GEML.
The differences between First Class and Standard on the East and West coasts compared with that on the GEML and MML are wildly different.
Begs the question whether there should be national minimum standards for what can be described as "First Class".
But depends what you call "Intercity".
If it's an express train (IE: not many stops between), some services on the MML would be this.
If it's expensive tickets, the MML is definately this.
If it's significantly different levels of class, the MML would not qualify.
If it's the speed the trains go, the MML would be up there.
These days, the express long distance routes appear to be "Intercity" - GWML, WCML, ECML.
GEML, London-Brighton, MML, possibly XC should all be secondary XC routes.
While prices are high on MML, the differences between First Class and Standard are akin to that on GEML.
The differences between First Class and Standard on the East and West coasts compared with that on the GEML and MML are wildly different.
Begs the question whether there should be national minimum standards for what can be described as "First Class".
But depends what you call "Intercity".
If it's an express train (IE: not many stops between), some services on the MML would be this.
If it's expensive tickets, the MML is definately this.
If it's significantly different levels of class, the MML would not qualify.
If it's the speed the trains go, the MML would be up there.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,842
Ironic if speed is a major consideration that the fastest domestic trains are the 395s, with their 1/3 2/3 doors, no first class and no buffet car/trolley at all!
The trouble with something like this is that there aren't just two categories - there are at least five or six, ranging from an Anglo-Scottish express - which is very definitely InterCity, whatever that means - to the Heart of Wales and the Central lines - neither of which is InterCity, but which are also totally different from each other. And just as the boundaries aren't explicitly defined, they aren't a fixed line in the sand either.
To try and define an 'intercity' service, I'd ignore the rolling stock. To my mind, the main characteristics are relatively long distances at relatively high speeds, with stops limited to principal stations only.
TravellingPhil
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 130
For the general public, it can depend on where you live on what your perspective of 'intercity' might be.
For example, where I grew up in Lowestoft, it was always to Ipswich to "get the intercity". When I speak to family/friends back home now, that's still the perspective.
Here in the West Midlands, I never heard the term "intercity" used by friends. When going to London for example, people will usually be drawn to the cheapest train. I don't think they even know what it's going to be until they get to the station (and then moan about how long it took or how cramped it was afterwards!). Although with some people, Virgin is recognisable as a service. Chiltern is also known as a brand to a lesser extent, though people I know usually refer to the "one that goes from Snow Hill".
For example, where I grew up in Lowestoft, it was always to Ipswich to "get the intercity". When I speak to family/friends back home now, that's still the perspective.
Here in the West Midlands, I never heard the term "intercity" used by friends. When going to London for example, people will usually be drawn to the cheapest train. I don't think they even know what it's going to be until they get to the station (and then moan about how long it took or how cramped it was afterwards!). Although with some people, Virgin is recognisable as a service. Chiltern is also known as a brand to a lesser extent, though people I know usually refer to the "one that goes from Snow Hill".
tbtc
Veteran Member
I think that some people have a starting point of "BR had a separate InterCity operation, so InterCity services must be A Good Thing"...
...and then work backwards to try to justify why some services are and some aren't (as if there was ever a magic combination of journey time, top speed, door position, overall distance, catering facilities and number of stations served which can provide a Unifying Equation of InterCityness)...
...rather than recognising that InterCity was just a brand arbitrarily applied to some routes that had some major discrepancies, based on how things were in the 1980s, which means we have modern day hangovers. It was a nice brand, it elevated some routes above others, but BR were generally much better at marketing than they were at running trains.
Good point
True - it's fifty shades of grey, but there are some in the enthusiast "community" who are very black/white on some issues. Maybe there's scope for another thread - the most cities served by a nonInterCity service (e.g. Northern manage four on some services, like Nottingham - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds... or Leeds - Bradford - Manchester - Chester).
There's also the issue that (since London links are a sacred cow for some places), the "InterCity" service can be slower than some of the other services at the "country" end - like the regular Aberdeen - Edinburgh services run by ScotRail often just stop twice before getting to Dundee and then run non-stop from Leuchars to Haymarket... but the LNER services do Stonehaven, Montrose *and* Arbroath and then (beyond Leuchars) also stop at Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing... XC stop at Cupar/ Ladybank/ Markinch on top of the LNER stops. So you can have a situation where a shorter distance nonInterCity train has limited stops but the InterCity one has to stop at all middling stations (because there'd be local outrage if a London link was lost). 125mph Voyager stops at places like Ladybank that a 100mph Turbostar sails through.
...and then work backwards to try to justify why some services are and some aren't (as if there was ever a magic combination of journey time, top speed, door position, overall distance, catering facilities and number of stations served which can provide a Unifying Equation of InterCityness)...
...rather than recognising that InterCity was just a brand arbitrarily applied to some routes that had some major discrepancies, based on how things were in the 1980s, which means we have modern day hangovers. It was a nice brand, it elevated some routes above others, but BR were generally much better at marketing than they were at running trains.
Good point
True - it's fifty shades of grey, but there are some in the enthusiast "community" who are very black/white on some issues. Maybe there's scope for another thread - the most cities served by a nonInterCity service (e.g. Northern manage four on some services, like Nottingham - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds... or Leeds - Bradford - Manchester - Chester).
There's also the issue that (since London links are a sacred cow for some places), the "InterCity" service can be slower than some of the other services at the "country" end - like the regular Aberdeen - Edinburgh services run by ScotRail often just stop twice before getting to Dundee and then run non-stop from Leuchars to Haymarket... but the LNER services do Stonehaven, Montrose *and* Arbroath and then (beyond Leuchars) also stop at Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing... XC stop at Cupar/ Ladybank/ Markinch on top of the LNER stops. So you can have a situation where a shorter distance nonInterCity train has limited stops but the InterCity one has to stop at all middling stations (because there'd be local outrage if a London link was lost). 125mph Voyager stops at places like Ladybank that a 100mph Turbostar sails through.
On the other extreme - I'm sure someone can find an 'InterCity' service that only actually serves one city, and maybe even one that doesn't serve any cities at all....
If we were to go down the German route, that's explained away by the train being classified as IC from London to Edinburgh, then as Regional from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Although that doesn't really help with a binary classification of IC/not-IC.
Well, depends whether you regard London as one vast city or have just the City of London and the City of Westminster local authority areas counting as cities. Since St Pancras is in neither of these two, a London to Corby train (definitely intercity under the current franchise) could serve just one city, or no cities at all. I can't think of any others though.
If you're playing that game, then the Metropolitan, District, Central and Circle Lines are all intercity railways!
I knew it was only a question of time before the thread morphs into a discussion about what the definition a city is.
Ok try driving from station to station in 1hr 45 mins at legal motorway speeds in a car & I bet you won’t be even close to that time.
There was a nice story from the Beeching rural railways evaluation. The Ministry sent along an observer one day to see the process. The route under review was Newcastle to Carlisle, a typical dmu route rural candidate for subsidy. The ministry man suddenly announced he didn't understand why they were there. BR had said they would take full commercial responsibility for Inter-City routes, without subsidy, and obviously both Newcastle and Carlisle were cities …
Regarding standards, a good example is my own experience on Cambridge to Kings Cross. When I first used this in the 1970s the "Cambridge Buffet Express" had pleasant 3-across seating in traditional side-corridor compartments. These were later replaced by 4-across Mk 2s. Come electrification, it was 5-across, but at least you could sit in them. Now with the 700s the seats are so narrow and squashed together that once beyond about 66% occupancy it is only practical to stand.
I didn't get the remark about tourism. Bristol is the largest tourist destination in the South West Region, which surprises some people (bigger than Bath, Bournemouth or Torbay, for instance). Perhaps the remark was about the EM region - it wasn't clear - but the tourist flow to London from EM (also from Bristol by the way) should not be forgotten, as was pointed out.
Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Southampton to London should have an inter-city quality service, a point made bitterly by local residents there, frequently.
Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Southampton to London should have an inter-city quality service, a point made bitterly by local residents there, frequently.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Are we just going to ignore that services run non stop between Leicester and London St Pancras? That's like 100 miles.
Probably a longer distance between stops than you'd find on WCML and ECML services!
Leicester to London is covered in just 1 hour and 7 minutes, vs 2 hours and 25 in the car. Over twice as fast vs a majority motorway journey!
Also what's this about the route not "deserving" 9 carriage trains? I can think of plenty "non-intercity" routes that get more than this, the idea of classifying what capacity a route should get by an arbitrary measurement such as is it "intercity" or not is a bit silly. Especially because to provide the services some would say it needed to get that classification, it could do with 9 carriage trains...
Probably a longer distance between stops than you'd find on WCML and ECML services!
Leicester to London is covered in just 1 hour and 7 minutes, vs 2 hours and 25 in the car. Over twice as fast vs a majority motorway journey!
Also what's this about the route not "deserving" 9 carriage trains? I can think of plenty "non-intercity" routes that get more than this, the idea of classifying what capacity a route should get by an arbitrary measurement such as is it "intercity" or not is a bit silly. Especially because to provide the services some would say it needed to get that classification, it could do with 9 carriage trains...
Kneedown
Established Member
I'd wager you'd be hard pushed to do it even if you didn't comply with the lawful speed limit. The traffic on the M1 is a nightmare before you get anywhere near London.
York, Stoke and Warrington, every hour. Plus countless more non London, like MKC to Crewe or Peterborough - York....
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 782
And it would pass through the only city en-route without stopping (St. Albans). Which opens up another avenue of discussion, Inter City trains which pass through cities without stopping, there must be loads, Lichfield, Lancaster, Peterborough, Chelmsford etc.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
That would be classified EC (Eurocity) on the continent.
EC services are actually a curious mix of the superb and mediocre, and not usually on high speed lines, but this one at least connects two EU countries together (for now).
Actually, the German IC designation also covers a variety of service types, and it is mostly similar to our XC pattern (hourly between medium-sized places).
Meanwhile ICE, TGV, RJ, FR, AVE etc are now of higher quality and speed than mere IC services (and mostly using high-speed lines).
After HS2 comes in, the southern parts of WCML/MML/ECML will have to be reconfigured anyway, and they will lose their historic primacy.
Last edited:
Not strictly a requirement - it just needs to connect two countries. Logically at least one of them ought to be in Europe, but the EuroCity network served countries not in the European Communities well before the EU was even a thought, and even served Norway which has never been in the EU.
Try a more realistic comparison which includes travelling from origin to station and station to destination, plus accounting for padding to minimise the risk of missing the train, and compare that to the car, you may find that it is a lot closer.
- Status