• 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!

Why are some train lengths so short?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serathor

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2016
Messages
85
Hi all

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, or it's a stupid question. If it's either I will delete the post no problem.

A serious question (eventually) but possibly a bit of a rant (sorry)


A recent (October) trip from Darlington to Exeter, and while we where there Exeter to Bristol the train provided was a 4 set Class 220 ( Cross Country Voyager). And I hate these things. I could not afford 1st class but ended up paying over £150 each for a cramped 6 hour journey, which to be fair when I do it next time I am just going to take the car. (more comfortable, and cheaper).

The train was fully packed all the way and thankfully I reserved seats, however when we decided to do a return trip from Exeter to Bristol, I paid £40 Each for the privilege of having to stand by the toilet. we where packed in like sardines.. it was awful.


A week before this trip, I had booked 1st class seats to Manchester from Darlington, this was on a 4 car Transpenine Express (3 car 185), so this was one 1st class and two standard class. and again all the way to Manchester the two Standard class coaches, people where squashed in like sardines some where sat in the vestibule area, others just came in and sat in 1st class (without the right ticket, it was so busy the guard just allowed them to stay).


I have just been looking at JohnW1's Excellent photo's on here. and there are 47's with around 9 - 10 coaches on.


Why are these train lengths so small these days, is it cost or is it just that's the way it is now? Wiki article on the 220 says these where intended to replace the 47's and the HST's however I have recently done Darlington to London a couple of times on the HST's and 91's standard class, and they where lovely and comfy with adequate room to sit for a couple of hours, and a decent amount of coaches.


Kind Regards
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sftfan1909

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2018
Messages
375
Location
Gloucester
The increase in frequency of services plays a part, as less people will need to take one specific train. However I think the two routes you mention are some of the worst for overcrowding and lots of trains are too short
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,588
Location
All around the network
The 220s were ordered and built in 2000-2001, when rail ridership was reducing year on year up to 1996 and had reached a multi decade low. ToCs believed the trend would continue. There was no need to order long trains.
Graph attached.
The 185s came a bit later, ordered in 2003. The SRA (now the DfT or the DaFT as me and others call them) were a strange bureaucratic organisation that frequently denied ToCs the option to order more trains or add more coaches to existing units. Hence years pass before an order for more and longer trains is placed.
Hope this helped.
 

Attachments

  • 13FD53A9-C910-41B2-BA97-C0D6B48FB22F.png
    13FD53A9-C910-41B2-BA97-C0D6B48FB22F.png
    15.1 KB · Views: 237

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,756
Location
Wilmslow
A recent (October) trip from Darlington to Exeter, and while we where there Exeter to Bristol the train provided was a 4 set Class 220 ( Cross Country Voyager). And I hate these things. I could not afford 1st class but ended up paying over £150 each for a cramped 6 hour journey, which to be fair when I do it next time I am just going to take the car. (more comfortable, and cheaper).

The train was fully packed all the way and thankfully I reserved seats, however when we decided to do a return trip from Exeter to Bristol, I paid £40 Each for the privilege of having to stand by the toilet. we where packed in like sardines.. it was awful.


A week before this trip, I had booked 1st class seats to Manchester from Darlington, this was on a 4 car Transpenine Express (3 car 185), so this was one 1st class and two standard class. and again all the way to Manchester the two Standard class coaches, people where squashed in like sardines some where sat in the vestibule area, others just came in and sat in 1st class (without the right ticket, it was so busy the guard just allowed them to stay).
I would suggest going via London next time, it's likely that it won't take longer, the trains will be better and you can probably do it for around the same price. King's Cross to Paddington on the Underground is easy enough, although I know some people don't like going across London.

I loathe using Cross Country and boycott their services if I can. Birmingham-Manchester can be terrible but at least it's a shorter journey than yours was!
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
My impression of cross-country in BR days was that it was largely a collection of routes, locos and coaches that none of the more prestigious sectors wanted, with a timetable more determined by available paths than making a cohesive system.
In the early days of privatisation, Virgin decided rightly that this wouldn't do, and began Operation Princess, introducing new rolling stock to routes that had only ever had hand-me-downs. Replacing 8 - 10 coach trains at 1tph or less with 4 or 5 coach trains at clock-face half hourly intervals looked reasonable, but the provision of brand new and more frequent trains revealed suppressed demand that has never since been adequately met.
It might have been possible to lengthen the trains in the early years, but before very long the Voyager production line had been dismantled, making additional coaches unavailable. Plus by then the DfT had control of the franchise and the finances, and decided that Cross Country's unfortunate passengers would have to put up with overcrowding for years to come.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,756
Location
Wilmslow
Darlington to Exeter next week: 09:12 Cross Country arrives Exeter 14:45 and takes 5h33m. 09:27 via London gets you on the 12:36 from Paddington, arrives Exeter 14:59, takes 5h32m
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
My impression of cross-country in BR days was that it was largely a collection of routes, locos and coaches that none of the more prestigious sectors wanted, with a timetable more determined by available paths than making a cohesive system.
In the early days of privatisation, Virgin decided rightly that this wouldn't do, and began Operation Princess, introducing new rolling stock to routes that had only ever had hand-me-downs. Replacing 8 - 10 coach trains at 1tph or less with 4 or 5 coach trains at clock-face half hourly intervals looked reasonable, but the provision of brand new and more frequent trains revealed suppressed demand that has never since been adequately met.
Crosscountry rakes were 7-car for both HSTs from 1982 (Which were brand new trains allocated to North East - South West services, not hand-me-downs) and for class 47 hauled mark 2 rakes from around 1991, so the difference in train length wasn't as great as you make it sound.

The general point still stands though that providing twice as many trains (In some cases; it wasn't always that great an increase) with half the capacity failed to adequately meet passenger demand. That passenger journeys have all but doubled in the period since the Voyagers were ordered serves to drive home just how inadequate they are twenty years later.
 

Flying Snail

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Messages
1,625
Not a full explanation, but carriage layout is different nowadays, generally able to fit more people than a 'traditional' loco-hauled carriage. There is not a 1:1 relationship with number of vehicles/capacity.

That is simply not true, particularly in the case of Voyagers or commuter layout stock (185s) on long distance services. No modern stock can match the space efficiency of a Mk3 or late build Mk2 both containing 2 toilets per carriage. The massive toilets on voyagers and the dead space around the cabs essentially make a 4 car the equivalent of 3 hauled coaches. The large 1/3, 2/3 vestibules on 185s also reduce the seated capacity.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
and for class 47 hauled mark 2 rakes from around 1991, so the difference in train length wasn't as great as you make it sound.

Six coach sets (BFK-RBR/RMB-4 TSO) from May 1988 to match HST timings, later altered to 7 or 8 coach sets from May 1990 (RFB-5 or 6 TSO-BG). Then to fixed RFB-5 TSO-BSO from 1991.

That is simply not true, particularly in the case of Voyagers or commuter layout stock (185s) on long distance services. No modern stock can match the space efficiency of a Mk3 or late build Mk2 both containing 2 toilets per carriage. The massive toilets on voyagers and the dead space around the cabs essentially make a 4 car the equivalent of 3 hauled coaches. The large 1/3, 2/3 vestibules on 185s also reduce the seated capacity.

Indeed considering a Mk3 BR XC HST TS seated 72 later 76 Std, while a Mk2e or f TSO seated 64 Std later decreased to 60 for luggage space. IIIRC a Voyager MS seats 62 Std, less for the ex-shop ones.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
Crosscountry rakes were 7-car for both HSTs from 1982 (Which were brand new trains allocated to North East - South West services, not hand-me-downs) and for class 47 hauled mark 2 rakes from around 1991, so the difference in train length wasn't as great as you make it sound.
Fair points, I should have said that some/many routes had only had hand-me-downs. I don't think I ever used the HST routes in BR days, my travels on cross country then were mostly Birmingham Oxford Reading and south coast.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
Crosscountry rakes were 7-car for both HSTs from 1982 (Which were brand new trains allocated to North East - South West services, not hand-me-downs) and for class 47 hauled mark 2 rakes from around 1991, so the difference in train length wasn't as great as you make it sound.

The general point still stands though that providing twice as many trains (In some cases; it wasn't always that great an increase) with half the capacity failed to adequately meet passenger demand. That passenger journeys have all but doubled in the period since the Voyagers were ordered serves to drive home just how inadequate they are twenty years later.

You're making the wrong comparison.
Prior to the HST fleet the standard XC train was a 47 or Peak hauling 10 or 12, even more on summer weekends. That's the comparison you should be making.
The introduction of the 7-car HSTs was the beginning of the process of train shrinking, and at the time brought as many complaints as introducing the Voyagers did
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
You're making the wrong comparison.
Prior to the HST fleet the standard XC train was a 47 or Peak hauling 10 or 12, even more on summer weekends. That's the comparison you should be making.
The introduction of the 7-car HSTs was the beginning of the process of train shrinking, and at the time brought as many complaints as introducing the Voyagers did

SOME XC trains were 10-12 cars but others werent - I remember from the mid 70s one multi-day diagram for a 5- coach Mk 1 set, strengthened on some legs south of Sheffield by an RMB and TSO. But your main point stands.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,810
Location
Sheffield
In those halcyon days when steam was giving way to diesel, trains could be 13 or more coaches. On small branch lines 3 coaches might be the norm. There was a lot of thin air being carted around but it was easy to get a choice of seat. No need to book on the vast majority of services and for the few you could you had to pay.

Compartments werre still common. They'd take 6 in First class, 8 in Third (to become Second class in 1956 and Standard class in 1980, second had previously been abolished in the 1870s) and if really busy we'd put the arm rests up and it was 5 abreast. Suburban services had no corridor but all stations had toilets.

Today we're expected to accept playing musical chairs on XC unless we've booked. Booked groups may be spread along the train so they play the game too to keep together.

The days when summer Saturday trains of 14 carriages ran South from Sheffield to the South West were 40 years ago.

In those days there were many thousands of old coaches stored for summer services and occasional specials. Beeching was right to highlight them. It was right to withdraw them at that time when railways were declining.

What's wrong now is that the railway has not been declining for over 3 decades, far from it. Local services are seeing doubled, and quadrupled passenger levels and some even more. Inadequate rolling stock has been ordered to carry them and reduced numbers and lengths of platforms and tracks exist to operate them.

The fact that we can't easily operate longer trains even when we have them is part of our problem. Reinstating removed and shortened platforms needs restored tracks to access them.

Rebuilding what Beeching's legacy removed should be focused as much, if not more, on restoring these before concentrating on branch lines long lost.
 
Last edited:

Scott M

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
395
I don't find it unreasonable to expect to have to book in advance if you want a seat on an intercity service. I travel with XC weekly, and even booking two weeks in advance I frequently get a forward facing, window, table seat, on a three hour journey on a train that is full to standing for a large portion of the journey,

But yes, they'd definitely benefit from longer trains. Not sure why DfT aren't planning on doing so, since it is a 'flagship' IC service. Reasons could include:

• They aren't aware
• Franchise isn't profitable enough for it to be a priority to them
• Franchise is highly profitable, so they know they can get away with providing a sub-par service and still have packed trains
• There just isn't enough money in the pot
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Fair points, I should have said that some/many routes had only had hand-me-downs. I don't think I ever used the HST routes in BR days, my travels on cross country then were mostly Birmingham Oxford Reading and south coast.
Yeah, a lot of XC's stock was hand-me-downs and your original point is a good one that the new, short trains were always likely to be insufficient to replace the longer, old ones, especially at times of peak demand.
You're making the wrong comparison.
Prior to the HST fleet the standard XC train was a 47 or Peak hauling 10 or 12, even more on summer weekends. That's the comparison you should be making.
The introduction of the 7-car HSTs was the beginning of the process of train shrinking, and at the time brought as many complaints as introducing the Voyagers did
It's not at all inappropriate to compare Voyagers with the trains they directly replaced.

Some of those trains in the early eighties had a Peak and ten coaches: And sometimes they only ran once a day to certain destinations. Now, services over any given XC route are hourly. An increase from 10-12 coaches a day to perhaps four times that number, in some instances, though some more far flung and esoteric destinations have been removed from the XC network altogether to suit a frequent 'clock face' timetable.

The essentially steam age method of operation that BR continued to adhere to into the eighties has little relevance to any comparison of the last thirty years. Different service pattern, different levels of demand. Not that I agree that the current approach of short, frequent trains is necessarily appropriate: I prefer longer, less frequent services. Killingworth has made some good points in a post above.
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
In those halcyon days when steam was giving way to diesel, trains could be 13 or more coaches. On small branch lines 3 coaches might be the norm. There was a lot of thin air being carted around but it was easy to get a choice of seat. No need to book on the vast majority of services and for the few you could you had to pay.

right, but 59ft coaches- 18metres. Still, granted, 13x18 is 234m, so ~10 mark 3 coaches. 13+ loco would be slightly longer than a pair of Class 800/801.

And long distance services were low frequency. Sure, some suburban lines running on steam ran to high frequencies, but the idea of having (eg) half hourly departures from London to Bristol from half five in the morning to half past eleven at nigh (plus extras), or 3tp2h from Birmingham to Exeter from 0612 to 2042? A wild dream.

Which doesn't of course mean that XC and TPE have long enough trains. The XC fleet should be a uniform 8 carriages of 22x, and the 185s 6-car fixed formations.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
Yeah, a lot of XC's stock was hand-me-downs and your original point is a good one that the new, short trains were always likely to be insufficient to replace the longer, old ones, especially at times of peak demand.

It's not at all inappropriate to compare Voyagers with the trains they directly replaced.

Some of those trains in the early eighties had a Peak and ten coaches: And sometimes they only ran once a day to certain destinations. Now, services over any given XC route are hourly. An increase from 10-12 coaches a day to perhaps four times that number, in some instances, though some more far flung and esoteric destinations have been removed from the XC network altogether to suit a frequent 'clock face' timetable.

The essentially steam age method of operation that BR continued to adhere to into the eighties has little relevance to any comparison of the last thirty years. Different service pattern, different levels of demand. Not that I agree that the current approach of short, frequent trains is necessarily appropriate: I prefer longer, less frequent services. Killingworth has made some good points in a post above.


Some of those routes may have been sparse, but the core route Bristol-Birmingham-Northeast was pretty regular...………..just sitting on the wall at Dawlish and watching trains stream through every four or five minutes, a large proportion XC, was enough to prove that.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Some of those routes may have been sparse, but the core route Bristol-Birmingham-Northeast was pretty regular...………..just sitting on the wall at Dawlish and watching trains stream through every four or five minutes, a large proportion XC, was enough to prove that.
On Summer Saturdays, yes. But the rest of the time?
 

Mugby

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Derby
As well as the timetabled services on the NE/SW route, BR used to provide many relief trains to most parts, they also had the capacity to put in, at short notice, an extra if the service train was running late etc. Birmingham to Bristol often had a DMU pressed into service to clear the crowds at New Street.

Last Saturday evening, I was returning from Birmingham to Derby, the 1803 was cancelled due to 'An issue with the train crew' The next train was the 1830, a 4-car Voyager which had to carry a double load in the evening peak, passengers were standing throughout the aisles.
That's the privatised railway!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
As well as the timetabled services on the NE/SW route, BR used to provide many relief trains to most parts, they also had the capacity to put in, at short notice, an extra if the service train was running late etc. Birmingham to Bristol often had a DMU pressed into service to clear the crowds at New Street.

Last Saturday evening, I was returning from Birmingham to Derby, the 1803 was cancelled due to 'An issue with the train crew' The next train was the 1830, a 4-car Voyager which had to carry a double load in the evening peak, passengers were standing throughout the aisles.
That's the privatised railway!

But there are more passengers, more services running, no spare paths and no spare stock per se to slot in ad hoc reliefs or extra services at short notice
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Some of those routes may have been sparse, but the core route Bristol-Birmingham-Northeast was pretty regular...………..just sitting on the wall at Dawlish and watching trains stream through every four or five minutes, a large proportion XC, was enough to prove that.
I'm highly sceptical that Crosscountry services every 4-5 minutes or anything like it was ever a regular thing outside of certain times on certain days at certain times of the year.

There's a balance to be struck, however, between modern high frequency services, that certainly seem to attract passengers, and traditional high capacity long distance trains with vehicles enough to suit seasonal needs or unexpected demand which isn't currently being met.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
The (second edition, post privatisation edition of the) book The InterCity Story by Chris Green and Mike Vincent makes no attempt to hide the train length v frequency issues on CrossCountry as the Voyagers were introduced. Phrases like "could not justify the extra investment at over £1 million a coach", "again tried to make an investment case for lengthening all Voyagers to five cars but this still proved resolutely uneconomic" and "retention of...HSTs... on the Plymouth-Newcastle route... rejected [by the SRA] on financial grounds" leap from the pages.

Practically every senior manager name-checked in the relevant chapter can be recognised as leading, experienced, ex-BR characters rather than 'franchise newbies', 'bus bandits' or whatever. Everybody responsible went into the new era with their eyes wide open. And many measures - revenue, passenger numbers, punctuality, frequency, journey times, cleanliness, comfort and staff helpfulness - moved in a favourable direction once the initial Operation Princess teething troubles had been overcome.

Some aspects have, of course, slipped back since then.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
Some of those routes may have been sparse, but the core route Bristol-Birmingham-Northeast was pretty regular...………..just sitting on the wall at Dawlish and watching trains stream through every four or five minutes, a large proportion XC, was enough to prove that.

What date are you suggesting here?

I doubt they ever operated 4-5 minute headways in total, let alone just cross-country services.

The key determinant, if I recall correctly, was the sectional running time at Whiteball (between Taunton and Exeter) which was around 7 minutes. So 8 trains per hour if - and it's a huge if - everything ran to sectional running times.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
The (second edition, post privatisation edition of the) book The InterCity Story by Chris Green and Mike Vincent makes no attempt to hide the train length v frequency issues on CrossCountry as the Voyagers were introduced. Phrases like "could not justify the extra investment at over £1 million a coach", "again tried to make an investment case for lengthening all Voyagers to five cars but this still proved resolutely uneconomic" and "retention of...HSTs... on the Plymouth-Newcastle route... rejected [by the SRA] on financial grounds" leap from the pages.

This hits the nail on the head. Franchise operation is about income, expenditure, premium and subsidy.

If you want a "better" service - such as longer trains - it has to be paid for. By either higher fares or higher subsidy/ lower premium.

And if you think the Government is going to start spraying extra money at XC I don't share your optimism.
 

Tempest3K

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2015
Messages
154
Location
York
Reasons could include:

• They aren't aware
• Franchise isn't profitable enough for it to be a priority to them
• Franchise is highly profitable, so they know they can get away with providing a sub-par service and still have packed trains
• There just isn't enough money in the pot

You missed:

• Doesn't go near London so DFT don't give a damn about it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top