Are Intercity/fast and Regional/stopping services better or worse when clearly differentiated from each other?

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd argue that it is the WCML that has an outmoded operational model - with an artificial division between "slow" and "fast" trains.

Found this interesting. In other threads, I think Great British Railways speculative branding ones, many members have said it’s better to have a very distinct difference between fast intercity services and the slower commuter trains. I think @Bletchleyite might have been one.

An example is probably SNCF. The TGV is very clearly the big fast limited stop express service, with impressive premium stock used only for those services (no using it for other services like longer distance TER routes) with dedicated facilities and amenities. It is clearly quite separate from the TER which has much slower speeds and more stops on all routes, along with smaller trains and a more basic service. You have to reserve on TGV whereas TER is more based on flexible ticketing. A station is either major enough to be served by the TGV or it isn’t, in which case it gets TER only. No random limited TGV calls, it either does or it doesn’t.

By contrast, some SBB trains like a 460+IC2000 set could work an IC diagram one day and an IR one the next day, or share both IR and local workings (FLIRTS) and it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between SNCB RE and IC services when they often use the same DOSTO stock.

In the UK, an example of a clear division between IC and Regional could be Virgin Trains and London Midland, for example, compared to something like GWR and Greater Anglia where the universal IETs and Flirts respectively blur the lines, as do the fact some London Paddington services serve smaller stations at times like Ivybridge, Lostwithiel, Torre, etc. A more distinct intercity operation would probably be limited stop as much as possible, with different reservation regulations too.

There are benefits of clear differences - you know an Intercity service will bring you a faster, limited stop journey on longer distance trains, whereas your Regional service can be relied on as your local connection with ease of walk up access and high capacity. There are also benefits of more blurred lines between the two, such as more comfortable stock rich in amenities on Regional services, and more local stations getting direct connections to places. It also prevents local services or stations where the fastest trains skip feeling like an afterthought.

I’m interested to know your thoughts. I personally quite like the idea of quite a distinction between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've voted for the split, but in reality the nature of the UK's network probably requires a bit of pragmatism.

It's worth noting before we delve into that that the reason for a very clear split in EU countries is the way the EU sees railways - intercity transport is seen as a free market which should be open to competition both within and between modes and should not receive subsidy, whereas regional transport is generally seen as best run on an integrated basis across modes with provision mostly by way of tenders, i.e. competition at the point of tendering rather than the point of use. Curiously the UK (pre nationalisation/regulation and outside London) has it backwards, with all rail being tendered and most bus being a free, unsubsidised market (aside from Bus Service Operator's Grant which is largely a tax rebate rather than an actual subsidy).

However what I do see as fairly important is that there are clear branded customer offerings. It is clear for example what an LNER service is - the brand is clear, there's a buffet, there are two classes and you get freebies in 1st, though I like less that these vary a lot between trains. Same with Avanti. However if you look at GWR, the brand "GWR service" applies both to long distance IETs and stopping 150s, and this isn't a good split. EMR seems to have come up with three of these value propositions but still ends up with the Liverpool-Norwich almost falling between two.

Thus I indeed think there should be an "InterCity" post GBR which has a service proposition similar to that of LNER and would encompass all of LNER and Avanti, the EMR IC services, the GWR IC services, XC other than the 170s and some TPE services (primarily the Liverpool to Newcastle fasts). There would similarly be other levels of service - some sort of sub-IC for other TPE services and the likes (InterRegio or Express) and also regional brands. And probably something different for the South East where "fast to X then all stations to Y" at several levels is pragmatically the usual service pattern (I'm conscious that that exists elsewhere too like the Barrow/Windermere), and doing the thing you get in Germany sometimes where it's "IC to X then RE to Y"* would just be a bit confusing. DB used to use StadtExpress for this sort of service, so maybe we could just call it "CityExpress", odd though that might sound when you're taking a little bimble from Burneside to Staveley.

So as a whole the service proposition of IC (two/three classes**, on board catering, relatively few stops) needs to be fairly clear, but you don't want to start terminating the ICs at Plymouth with a Sprinter onwards to Penzance just because it calls at most stations after that.

By the way there is "TERGV" as a thing, which is a subsidised regional service on a high speed line using a TGV set, so even France has some pragmatism.

* There is a genuine reason for this in Germany though - the IC part of the route won't be subsidised whereas the RE part will.
** I think on balance I favour two - much as I quite like the Standard Premium service proposition on Avanti I don't think it's actually of overall benefit having both that and 1st when you've only got 3 vehicles to play with, particularly as 1st isn't particularly premium and I doubt there's really much of a market at least pre HS2 2B for a super-premium service in the UK with say 1+1 seating - that traffic will generally prioritise time and fly, or it will go by premium German car.

 

[Sorcerer]

I also voted for a split because there is a market for both regional and long-distance express trains on most railways, both of which have different needs for optimal operation, and as such stock should be built accordingly. Passengers travelling on regional services aren't going to care too much for an on-board shop or catering service if they're only travelling to work, and conversely the business and leisure passengers aren't going to appreciate being given minimal amenities when they might be travelling for hours between destinations. Stock sharing simply isn't practical between the operations.

Fast and slow operations should remain even if it were with minimal branding; I believed that a single GBR livery would've been ideal, but even in that situation I would've still had different services distinctively advertised on tickets and in station announcements (ie. "Platform 9 for the xx:43 InterCity service to London Euston"). It would have simply been a case of replacing operator names in announcements with service designations like Avanti, LNER, EMR InterCity and GWR intercity services being announced as "InterCity" while Northern and GWR commuter services are announced as "Regional".

The example of SBB's 460+IC2000 stock running both IC and IR is interesting, and similarly the RABDe 500 (ICN) also runs both IC and IR services, but I think in that case stock sharing is reasonable because interregional work is more like intercity work but operating with more stops (like the Avanti Birmingham semi-fast) than it is regular regional work and will have the same kind of passenger amenities such as catering and different classes of travel. This means that stock such as the 807s can be used for both interregional and intercity (Birmingham and Liverpool) allowing for flexible diagrams while still clearly being fast long-distance rolling stock.

 

[The exile]

Also voted for a split - but again pragmatism is required - it only makes sense where traffic warrants it.

 

[HSTEd]

As the person who's statement started this thread (indirectly), I guess I should clarify.

In a hypothetical world where lots of very long rail journeys existed in the UK, as they once did and still do on the continent, I might be supportive of a separate intercity brand.

Immediately before the dawn of the modern "InterCity" railway with the Midland Pullman, it represented a 3hr15 journey from London to Manchester, as opposed to the regular 3hr50 minute journey.
A crack journey of 3hr15, and now the railway does it in 2hr08, several times an hour, every hour, all day (more or less).
Once HS2 comes in, you will be looking at 1hr50 or something of that nature (I believe).

3hr50, the regular journey that got you to Manchester in 1960 (non Pullman!) now gets you more or less to the central belt. The problem is that the London-CEntral belt is pretty much the longest time 'mass' flow on the GB railway.

Sure Aberdeen-Penzance is far longer and all that, but how many people actually do that?

Norwich in 90, Manchester in ~130, Leeds in 150 etc etc etc.
Once HS2 comes in, the totals will shrink still further for many of thes destinations.

The facilities found on "InterCity" trains are largely predicated on passengers spending many hours on the train. In the old days this meant sleeper vehicles or restaurant cars equipped to serve multiple meals.
But the majority of our traditional intercity services are now so short in time terms that sandwiches or snacks sold from station outlets fulfill the bulk of the catering needs. Meanwhlie our railway fills up with more passengers making shorter journeys, through a sort of "TPE-isation".

As modern trains achieve higher and higher performance, the penalty for stops shortens and a desire for more capacity forces convergence in journey times between "fast" and "slow" trains.

The number of routes that I Think could be considered "truly" InterCity falls with each performance improvement.
I think we are rapidly approaching the point that such a brand is the railway equivalent of the Caledonian Sleeper - sustained almost more by tradition anything else.

And unlike the sleepers, intercity is not backed by a powerful political lobby.

I think the future of the railway is increasing "TPEisation" or "Metroisation", perhaps to the point of most displays showing "Next fastest train to:" type information.
Long journeys might still exist, but they won't form a large enough part of the railway to be worth building branding around.

 

[cactustwirly]

Found this interesting. In other threads, I think Great British Railways speculative branding ones, many members have said it’s better to have a very distinct difference between fast intercity services and the slower commuter trains. I think @Bletchleyite might have been one.

An example is probably SNCF. The TGV is very clearly the big fast limited stop express service, with impressive premium stock used only for those services (no using it for other services like longer distance TER routes) with dedicated facilities and amenities. It is clearly quite separate from the TER which has much slower speeds and more stops on all routes, along with smaller trains and a more basic service. You have to reserve on TGV whereas TER is more based on flexible ticketing. A station is either major enough to be served by the TGV or it isn’t, in which case it gets TER only. No random limited TGV calls, it either does or it doesn’t.

By contrast, some SBB trains like a 460+IC2000 set could work an IC diagram one day and an IR one the next day, or share both IR and local workings (FLIRTS) and it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between SNCB RE and IC services when they often use the same DOSTO stock.

In the UK, an example of a clear division between IC and Regional could be Virgin Trains and London Midland, for example, compared to something like GWR and Greater Anglia where the universal IETs and Flirts respectively blur the lines, as do the fact some London Paddington services serve smaller stations at times like Ivybridge, Lostwithiel, Torre, etc. A more distinct intercity operation would probably be limited stop as much as possible, with different reservation regulations too.

There are benefits of clear differences - you know an Intercity service will bring you a faster, limited stop journey on longer distance trains, whereas your Regional service can be relied on as your local connection with ease of walk up access and high capacity. There are also benefits of more blurred lines between the two, such as more comfortable stock rich in amenities on Regional services, and more local stations getting direct connections to places. It also prevents local services or stations where the fastest trains skip feeling like an afterthought.

I’m interested to know your thoughts. I personally quite like the idea of quite a distinction between the two.

But if you take Marseille to Nice, the TV stops at the same stops as the TER service and takes the same amount of time. I guess it's a bit grey because the TER uses ex Intercités stock

GWR is a pragmatic solution as an efficient way of servicing those stations, there is a limited Exeter to Plymouth local train so stopping Paddington trains at Ivybridge is an efficient way of serving that station.
Same with the late night services to Bedwyn, the trains would otherwise be idle or run empty all the way to Stoke Gifford. So is more resource efficient than having separate intercity trains

 

[Farigiraf]

The Manchester-Pembrokeshire and the Cardiff-Exeter-Penzance are examples of why it would be difficult to perfectly differentiate between Intercity and not Intercity.
Both typically use 'intercity' style stock (67 + mk4s / IETS), both often run fast or semifast on parts of the route (between Shrewsbury and Manchester and between Cardiff and Swansea / through suburban Bristol and south of Exeter), and both provide the main service between certain cities (Manchester, Newport, Cardiff, Swansea and some large towns / Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth and some large towns). However, elsewhere on the route, they provide the 'local' service (west of Swansea and between Shrewsbury and Newport / between Weston and Exeter and throughout Cornwall and west Devon).
Which category would these services fall under? Intercity or Regional? Or do you start making sub-categories such as Regional-Express, or splitting up the route into a high-quality fast service and a lower-quality local stopper*? At this point it becomes unnecessary compared to keeping it as it is.
Other examples include the Cotswolds IET services, SWR Weymouth (all-stops after Poole) services and TPE Edinburgh-Newcastle.

* In some places the local services have the higher quality newer trains (e.g. South Wales with FLIRTS or the West Midlands with 730s/196s) but elsewhere it's the opposite (e.g. north east or south west England with sprinters on most services). My point is that until large stock orders of different train types for the same operator start happening (maybe GBR will make this more frequent) there'll often be a contrast in most places.

 

[Zomboid]

"Intercity" is probably an indication of the expected service level more than the length of the end to end journey or stopping pattern throughout.

For example the London to Inverness train is Intercity because of the provision of high quality rolling stock (your mileage may vary...) with the buffet and first class provision. The fact that North of Perth it's pretty much an all shacks stopper is neither here nor there, and of course it's one of the fastest trains to operate on its route south of Edinburgh.

On the other hand, the LNR Euston to Crewe is some kind of Regional Express service because the trains aren't as deluxe as an 80x, and the service doesn't have the various extras available that an Intercity service would offer.

 

[Brubulus]

As the person who's statement started this thread (indirectly), I guess I should clarify.

In a hypothetical world where lots of very long rail journeys existed in the UK, as they once did and still do on the continent, I might be supportive of a separate intercity brand.

Immediately before the dawn of the modern "InterCity" railway with the Midland Pullman, it represented a 3hr15 journey from London to Manchester, as opposed to the regular 3hr50 minute journey.
A crack journey of 3hr15, and now the railway does it in 2hr08, several times an hour, every hour, all day (more or less).
Once HS2 comes in, you will be looking at 1hr50 or something of that nature (I believe).

3hr50, the regular journey that got you to Manchester in 1960 (non Pullman!) now gets you more or less to the central belt. The problem is that the London-CEntral belt is pretty much the longest time 'mass' flow on the GB railway.

Sure Aberdeen-Penzance is far longer and all that, but how many people actually do that?

Norwich in 90, Manchester in ~130, Leeds in 150 etc etc etc.
Once HS2 comes in, the totals will shrink still further for many of thes destinations.

The facilities found on "InterCity" trains are largely predicated on passengers spending many hours on the train. In the old days this meant sleeper vehicles or restaurant cars equipped to serve multiple meals.
But the majority of our traditional intercity services are now so short in time terms that sandwiches or snacks sold from station outlets fulfill the bulk of the catering needs. Meanwhlie our railway fills up with more passengers making shorter journeys, through a sort of "TPE-isation".

As modern trains achieve higher and higher performance, the penalty for stops shortens and a desire for more capacity forces convergence in journey times between "fast" and "slow" trains.

The number of routes that I Think could be considered "truly" InterCity falls with each performance improvement.
I think we are rapidly approaching the point that such a brand is the railway equivalent of the Caledonian Sleeper - sustained almost more by tradition anything else.

And unlike the sleepers, intercity is not backed by a powerful political lobby.

I think the future of the railway is increasing "TPEisation" or "Metroisation", perhaps to the point of most displays showing "Next fastest train to:" type information.
Long journeys might still exist, but they won't form a large enough part of the railway to be worth building branding around.

I can't really believe the last point given the push towards Advance tickets which specify a train.
There has always been a blurred line between Intercity and non intercity services. I think there should be 3 categories of service. Local - suburban and rural services. Example - Newbury-Bedwyn.
InterRegional, medium distance services that link secondary cities and towns. Example Birmingham-Stansted and London-Kings Lynn.
Intercity, long distance services between primary cities. Example Plymouth-Edinburgh. As a general rule, intercity services should have hot food available onboard and a high quality first class. InterRegional should have first class but without service so just a larger seat and more space. While local services should not have first class.

Intercity services should have hot food available, via a buffet counter, off train cooking or airline style heating and trolley distribution.
InterRegional services should have a trolley or vending machine service, with an aim to provide hot food where reasonably practical.
Local services do not need any sort of onboard food service.

Secondly - fares, as a general rule local flows should simply have a peak and off peak price. Advances should never be sold on local services. Local services should not have reserveable seats, while InterRegional and intercity services should.
Inter-city flows should have a Advance, 70 min flex, anytime fare structure, since the priority is to ensure all passengers are able to have a seat, while on regional express, this should be the case on longer distance flows but on short and medium distance flows, the local fare structure applies and reservations are unavailable for these passengers. No regular service should be compulsory reservations, but local passengers should be unable to access reservations on reservable services.

As a general rule, the quality of services in the UK is lower than Western Europe on long distance routes, with French and German.high speed trains usually having restaurant cars.

We shouldn't reduce service to the lowest common denominator, instead we should find ways to provide a high quality service at a lower cost to passengers and the taxpayer.

 

[Farigiraf]

"Intercity" is probably an indication of the expected service level more than the length of the end to end journey or stopping pattern throughout.

For example the London to Inverness train is Intercity because of the provision of high quality rolling stock (your mileage may vary...) with the buffet and first class provision. The fact that North of Perth it's pretty much an all shacks stopper is neither here nor there, and of course it's one of the fastest trains to operate on its route south of Edinburgh.

There is not always clear differentiation between intercity and non-intercity in this way either. Lumo and Southeastern HS1 have no first class or buffet, while some SWR, Southern and TPE commuter services have first class, and the Settle-Carlisle and Far North routes (both 158 operated, hopefully eventually some sort of modern regional-express panorama train) both have onboard catering. Any kind of differentiation of services into intercity/regional/special combination would require categorising specific services on each route, which would overcomplicate it, rather than setting an expectation of the kind of service it will be for the passenger. In countries which have had this system for years, service patterns and trains have adapted to the system, but currently it's too all over the place in the UK to start doing it now.

 

[A S Leib]

Advances should never be sold on local services.

Would that apply to routes like Carlisle to Leeds or Wick to Inverness where the off-peak (day) return is around £40, or would they count as interregional and therefore have advance tickets available due to their length?

No regular service should be compulsory reservations, but local passengers should be unable to access reservations on reservable services.

Do you mean that local passengers shouldn't be able to reserve seats, or shouldn't be able to board intercity services at all? The latter might work in cases where there's frequent, high-capacity alternatives like LNR (and Overground) rather than Avanti between Watford Junction and Euston; less so between Didcot, Swindon, Bath, Bristol Parkway and Newport (and, to a lesser extent, Cardiff and Bristol).

 

[Brubulus]

Would that apply to routes like Carlisle to Leeds or Wick to Inverness where the off-peak (day) return is around £40, or would they count as interregional and therefore have advance tickets available due to their length?

Do you mean that local passengers shouldn't be able to reserve seats, or shouldn't be able to board intercity services at all? The latter might work in cases where there's frequent, high-capacity alternatives like LNR (and Overground) rather than Avanti between Watford Junction and Euston; less so between Didcot, Swindon, Bath, Bristol Parkway and Newport (and, to a lesser extent, Cardiff and Bristol).

Both of those routes are clearly interregional services - presence of catering etc. However if there are advances available on all services and they are not effectively moving passengers between services to maximise usage of capacity, they are not doing their job. This means they should be abolished and the flexible fares reduced to compensate.

Advances have a place on the railway, to enable the management of capacity on long distance routes. Otherwise they are unnecessary.

Passengers should be able to board these services, they should not be able to guarantee themselves a seat or purchase an advance ticket, given how it is a local flow for which passengers likely value convenience and flexibility. Eg Reading to London is a clear example of a local flow mostly serviced by intercity trains. Reading passengers would use contactless and take any unreserved seats/stand.

 

[renegademaster]

Extra service categories adds loads of pointless confusion for the "normies" and brings barely any benefits.


The Europhiles in this thread that think we should blindly copy France or Germany also don't realise that England isn't geographically that big and smaller than many subnational entities.

 

[A S Leib]

Advances have a place on the railway, to enable the management of capacity on long distance routes. Otherwise they are unnecessary.

Their place is also to enable people to travel long distances who otherwise couldn't afford to travel far at all.

 

[Zomboid]

What's clear is that there's no division of services that'll be exactly right for every train. So you'll get a number of anomalies no matter how you divide it up.

Availability/ validity of advance tickets is probably something for another thread.

 

[eldomtom2]

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy - the choice isn't just between full separation of service types with different stock, liveries, etc. and no designation of service types at all. Plenty of countries use the same stock on multiple service types, with the difference being shown by digital signs, announcements, etc.

 

[William3000]

Why are major cities like Brighton and Cambridge deemed not suitable for intercity services, being the 9th and 13th busiest stations in the UK outside London? While places like Retford, Diss, St Erth, Brockenhurst, and Banbury are?

 

[A S Leib]

Why are major cities like Brighton and Cambridge deemed not suitable for intercity services, being the 9th and 13th busiest stations in the UK outside London? While places like Retford, Diss, St Erth, Brockenhurst, and Banbury are?

Partly geography; Grays has more passengers than Crewe, but in the absence of long-distance cross-London services the former's going to be stuck with outer suburban services at best, whilst something has to give places like Diss good services and in some cases (near-)intercity services are the only realistic option. It doesn't make much sense to run an non-London Ipswich to Norwich service purely to avoid giving Diss intercity services (perhaps a bad example given that Greater Anglia already has a somewhat blurred regional / intercity line due to FLIRTs everywhere, but the principle stands).

It might be a chicken-and-egg situation in that the proportion might fall with improved links elsewhere, but around a third of Cambridge's traffic is to or from Kings Cross / St. Pancras; less than a fifth of Brockenhurst's is with Waterloo.

 

[NCT]

It depends on rolling stock and timetabling suitable for the particular geography.

There will be a typical journey length and typical stop distances that will tip the balance over in favour of inter-city type end door rolling stock, and this remains the case for most of the long-distance main lines radiating out of London. Other operations lend themselves more towards rolling stock with 1/3 2/3 doors for shorter dwells.

You want a certain level of operational homogeneity, and given this country's geography that usually means the London end. For reasons such as these you have Swindon being inter-city and King's Lynn being regional - some of these decisions can be marginal - at one point Cambridge was going to get the IET treatment and remapped to Inter-city East Coast.

What I like about the British approach to trains is not having rigid inter-city and regional distinctions. A London - Glasgow inter-city train doubles up as a regional train for Warrington - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - lakes - Preston (pre HS2 anyway), as the market and infrastructure do not easily allow for the two markets to be split. And the ticketing practice is that (unless you have an Advance ticket) a train is a train and you just hop on the next one. You don't get that in France or Germany. You might have a 2-hourly IC and a two-hourly TER but there's no ticket that allows you to enjoy the full benefit of the timetable for what should be a spontaneous journey like Bordeaux - Dax.

 

[tbtc]

I think a lot of people are either unaware of what "InterCity" actually was, or are misremembering it to suit their agendas

InterCity was the sector with BR's profitable corridors

That's basically it. NSE became the sector for the remaining routes in London/ Home Countries, Scotrail for all services wholly in Scotland (which included GSW to Carlisle) with everything else being Provincial

The branding people kept tinkering (Swallow Mainline, Executive etc), NSE"s steps became strictly horizontal, Provincial became Regional Railways... Don't let anyone pretend that refreshing colour schemes was an invention by those pesky private companies years later - BR seemed more focus on design guidelines than with the mundane stuff like running trains

Obviously there was some blurring/ borderline cases, you can argue all you want about London Waterloo - Exeter, but trains were one thing or another. Binary. I certainly don't remember any rolling stock branded "half and half"

InterCity never guaranteed restaurants etc (for a start, it included 158s on routes like Glasgow - Liverpool - Portsmouth, or Edinburgh - Manchester Airport)

InterCity never guaranteed electric trains, it never guaranteed 125mph running (as well as aforementioned 158s, the top tier colours reached many a 90mph 47 and some 31/37s)

InterCity didn't mean "service that serves lots of cities" (despite the name). Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - York - Durham - Newcastle wasn't InterCity, but London Victoria - Gatwick Airport shuttles were InterCity

Whilst I think all InterCity services had at least some First Class provision, so did many Provincial/ NSE services, including many of the first generation DMUs directly replaced by 150s

All the modern day revisionism about InterCity being a guarantee of high class facilities is rather ahistoric

I think Chris Green was responsible for some blurring of edges, when he made a case for stock that wasnt needed out of Craigentinny until nearly lunchtime (or that was scheduled to come out of service at teatime) be used to bolster Scotrail services (which allowed them to cascade their own saved trains into other Scottish routes in the peaks), hence the Highland Chieftain serving Inverness since those Edinburgh-London diagrams were the one which started latest in the morning and the one which finished earliest in the afternoon. Same applied to Cross Country service Aberdeen. Clever stuff, but the HSTs doing these cross border services were no faster than the Scotrail trains precisely because the ref striped stock was directly replacing blue striped trains

Maybe people want to strictly classify every train and every service into tiers on a modern railway, the generation who grew up with Pokemon etc and now want to pigeonhole everything and everyone. Fine, in if that's your obsession, but our train network is messy.

For example, if you were starting today maybe you wouldn't run top tier London expresses beyond Plymouth/ Swansea/ Chester/ Edinburgh etc, but there'd be hell to pay if you seriously tried to cut those long established routes

(Just look at the supposed outrage when Aberdeen to Penzance was withdrawn, even though the only people who ever did that through journey were only doing it practically because it was such a stupidly long way)

I'd also be careful when people suggest lots of tiers of service. Having a second tier to cover fastish routes linking big cities (maybe promoting them in the way that TransPennine/ Central Citylink/ Alpha line elevated the flagship routes run by some non- InterCity franchises?) looks tempting, but once you've finished trying to find a definition that includes these (TPE's Liverpool-Cleethorpes service is a fast route between the cities of Manchester - Sheffield - Doncaster, but then takes a loooooong time to trundle to the east coast, just like a Manchester - Milford Haven service is doing a very different job on the other side of Swansea... if you're including the Liverpool-Newcastle TPE service through Huddersfield then do you stretch the definitions so that your make a case for and TPE services from Manchester - Huddersfield - Castleford/ Hull/ Scarborough? Is Cardiff - Exeter a fast service or just a combination of various slower trains into one long/slow train? The XC170s are the only services at some Eat Midland stations so become the de facto stopper on those lines...Maybe there needs to be a Third Tier for these to at least elevate these services that are at least semi-fast on sections above the stoppers on certain lines, like the faster Calder Valley trains... What about services that aren't particularly fast anywherev but are at least long like the S&C? But if you include the S&C then what about the Leeds-Morecambe?)

Pretty soon you're then left with a "rump" of bottom tier services that might be easier to run down/ withdraw, the thin grey linesb on the map that few would notice/ miss... Be careful what you wish for. Promoting the middle tier stuff might only stretch the gap in public perception between this and anything which didn't make the grade

Just how much are you willing to rip up services and pair "like with like" to keep things near and tidy?

And then, no matter what you choose, Wales and Scotland will be different to the English services anyway.

And the more branding your want, the more complications you cause. In the days when everything has the same livery, Scotrail used to run 170s laying over at Queen Street between Aberdeen duties to fill in gaps on the the Anniesland shuttle. You couldn't do that with a "Seven cities" HST!

 

[Bletchleyite]

InterCity never guaranteed restaurants etc (for a start, it included 158s on routes like Glasgow - Liverpool - Portsmouth, or Edinburgh - Manchester Airport)

These were never branded InterCity, though they did have red interiors. They were known as CrossCountry Express and wore the same grey livery as the regional units.

InterCity as a brand in the 90s (aside from GatEx?) guaranteed you a long loco hauled train or HST and a buffet car service unless disrupted.

 

[William3000]

Partly geography; Grays has more passengers than Crewe, but in the absence of long-distance cross-London services the former's going to be stuck with outer suburban services at best, whilst something has to give places like Diss good services and in some cases (near-)intercity services are the only realistic option. It doesn't make much sense to run an non-London Ipswich to Norwich service purely to avoid giving Diss intercity services (perhaps a bad example given that Greater Anglia already has a somewhat blurred regional / intercity line due to FLIRTs everywhere, but the principle stands).

It might be a chicken-and-egg situation in that the proportion might fall with improved links elsewhere, but around a third of Cambridge's traffic is to or from Kings Cross / St. Pancras; less than a fifth of Brockenhurst's is with Waterloo.

But I don’t understand why Stansted to Birmingham or Norwich to Liverpool don’t deserve intercity services when Penzance to Aberdeen or Bournemouth to Manchester does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2025 ==

That’s why I prefer the blurring rather than distinction

 

[Brubulus]

It depends on rolling stock and timetabling suitable for the particular geography.

There will be a typical journey length and typical stop distances that will tip the balance over in favour of inter-city type end door rolling stock, and this remains the case for most of the long-distance main lines radiating out of London. Other operations lend themselves more towards rolling stock with 1/3 2/3 doors for shorter dwells.

You want a certain level of operational homogeneity, and given this country's geography that usually means the London end. For reasons such as these you have Swindon being inter-city and King's Lynn being regional - some of these decisions can be marginal - at one point Cambridge was going to get the IET treatment and remapped to Inter-city East Coast.

What I like about the British approach to trains is not having rigid inter-city and regional distinctions. A London - Glasgow inter-city train doubles up as a regional train for Warrington - Wigan - Preston - Lancaster - lakes - Preston (pre HS2 anyway), as the market and infrastructure do not easily allow for the two markets to be split. And the ticketing practice is that (unless you have an Advance ticket) a train is a train and you just hop on the next one. You don't get that in France or Germany. You might have a 2-hourly IC and a two-hourly TER but there's no ticket that allows you to enjoy the full benefit of the timetable for what should be a spontaneous journey like Bordeaux - Dax.

Agree here regarding decisions being marginal. With more inward commuting to Cambridge, the services effectively run as local services to Cambridge, before functioning as an "intercity shuttle" to London. This is why the InterRegional classification should not be only for non London services. 379s have proper first class, though onboard vending machines would be helpful to get a snack when I don't leave enough time to buy one at the station.

Secondly I do think that the UK system is much more flexible than on the continent, and I would like it to stay that way, but with GBR, clear tiers of service can be created, so passengers know what to expect, and hopefully a more consistent level of service can be introduced long-term. Look at the difference between SWR and GA, where SWR has 2+2 first class and no catering on its Weymouth services and GA has a proper first class and a buffet counter, despite being a substantially shorter journey.

I don't really care about the branding, the 170s with buffet counters and a 2+1 first class are totally fine for intercity services when they have sufficient speed and capacity. It's more about providing a clear guide for passengers about facilities and a basis for the fare system, to distinct between where flexibility is valued and where other concerns are more important.

As a general rule, the line between inter regional and local services does have to be drawn somewhere, in that I'd argue GA regional is local services, and so is the Leicester/Nottingham to Birmingham stoppers. On the other hand, Stansted to Birmingham and Nottingham to Cardiff are inter-regional services, with an argument for the latter to be intercity, but more for political reasons, and to see it get a similar service to Cardiff to Manchester, which has been effectively upgraded from Inter-Regional to Intercity with the quality provided by the MK4s.

Local services can still be really high quality, the GA regional fleet has absolutely enabled modal shift, and having clear tiers of service will help enable passengers to make informed decisions. This whole idea is about bringing up standards on the railway instead of lowering them.

The S+C along with the West Highland, Far North and Heart of Wales(maybe) lines are sui generis to an extent, but should be classified as inter regional for simplicity.