Mixed TOCs vs Intercity/Regional Split

[Manutd1999]

We currently have some TOCs who operate a mixture of local services and the Intercity services from their respective regions to London - EMR, Great Western Railway, Greater Anglia etc.

In other regions, the TOC operates only the "local" services and a separate TOC runs the Intercity operation - LNER, Avanti, Northern etc.

I can see the "mixed" model is beneficial for crew retention and perhpas for marketing, with customers identifying better with a "local" brand. On the other hand, splitting the Intercity/regional ops is better for rolling stock usage and prevents multiple regional TOCs from having to maintain London crew bases.

If we had the choice to re-arrange things as we like, which model is optimal?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Small point, despite their branding I do not personally think GA’s Norwich service can be considered an Intercity service. It’s just a more limited stop version of their other GEML services with stock kitted out with first class and a buffet.

 

[Failed Unit]

I don't think anyone has came up with a good answer to this, as the TOCs need a large enough depot to get some kind of economies of scale out of the operation. But whereever you draw the line whether that is regional / IC or just plan franchise it creates problems. When Central trians was split up and the East Midlands side was moved to EMR, a lot of cross-midlands service were lost. However other services were created such as Lincoln - London St Pancras. A journey no-one makes end to end but it gave a longer trian into Nottingham from Lincoln.

However in this example, it is often said that LNER should have Lincolnshire as a lot of passengers from the Lincolnshire are connecting into LNER services so they would have an incentive to intergrate the timetable. But to do that they would need a depot. One advantage would be, potentially easier to divert via Lincoln if the ECML is shut (using the regional crew as Pilots). But then lots of EMR passengers in Lincolnshire are also going to Nottingham.

GWR works because the majority of thier passengers are heading onto GWR services so they gain should the timetable be well constructed. We could have much debate about if LNER taking over the Northern services around Leeds would be a good thing as they are both owned by the same owner (DfT). With lots of good arguements to both sides.

I think where you get lots of interchanges it is a good thing.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If we had the choice to re-arrange things as we like, which model is optimal?

GWR and EMRs current operations are the combination of separate and Regional TOCs just as you suggest for now, until 2006 and 2007 respectively.

First Great Western starting 2006 (now GWR ofc) was combination of the original Intercity operator First Great Western (HST/180 HSS), and the patches of former Regional operators Thames Trains/GW Link (165/166 Thames Valley) and Wessex Trains (143/150/153/158 Western)

East Midlands Trains starting 2007 (now EMR) was the combination of Intercity operator Midlands Mainline (HST/222) with the eastern routes of Regional operator Central Trains (153/156/158 - all 170s went to LM/XC)

Now if these TOCs were to be split into Regional and Intercity again, logic would suggest EMR would be split much the same way it was pre 2006, as the now exclusive 222 Intercity operation is almost completely separate from the 158 & 170 Regional operation. I’m not saying it SHOULD be split, I’m just saying this is likely how they’d do it.

But GWR is a different kettle of fish because of just how blurred the distinctions have become between the three TOCs it was born out of. Class The Thames Turbos are now completely shared among former Thames Trains and Wessex Trains routes, and often swap between patches for maintenance reasons. These would be very awkward to permanently split, the 165s especially. The Thames Valley 387s regularly run on HSS network services to Cardiff and provide good flexibility in place of 80x unavailability. And most importantly of all, the HST replacements, the 80x - originally intended for the HSS services only - run not just 99% of the HSS services but also all of the Cardiff - Taunton, Cardiff/Gloucester - Plymouth and many Devon and Cornwall Regional services that would formerly have been Wessex Trains routes.

The spreading around of the Turbos and IETs, and to a lesser extent the 387s, really make it difficult to split GWR back into those three areas. Had it been 2018, and everything was still rigid with Turbos on Thames Trains patch, HSTs on HSS and Sprinters and Pacers on Wessex Trains patch, it would have been far easier.

 

[dk1]

I think at Anglia Railways we were the first TOU/TOC to do so.

 

[Meerkat]

Small point, despite their branding I do not personally think GA’s Norwich service can be considered an Intercity service. It’s just a more limited stop version of their other GEML services with stock kitted out with first class and a buffet.

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of an intercity service, especially one that connects the capital to two regional cities.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd say the combined model works best.

Up north we used to have separate north west and north east regional TOCs- First North Western and Northern Spirit/Arriva Trains Northern. These ran everything- as well as the stoppers FNW ran the expresses to Blackpool, Barrow, and the Lakes; NS/ATN was the same, running the stoppers and the TPE services from Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull/Newcastle/Scarborough and the Manchester-Sheffield-Cleethorpes. This was reorganised into TPE for the expresses and Northern for the regional trains. It hasn't worked and, after ten years, it's fair to say it never will work. All it has created is duplication. Some of the changes, like Manchester-Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere going back to Northern, have at least unwound the worst of it in the north west.

 

[QSK19]

Now if these TOCs were to be split into Regional and Intercity again, logic would suggest EMR would be split much the same way it was pre 2006, as the now exclusive 222 Intercity operation is almost completely separate from the 158 & 170 Regional operation. I’m not saying it SHOULD be split, I’m just saying this is likely how they’d do it.

How would you factor the Connect service into this? Annex it to the Intercity operation as an all-stopper service or transfer it to Thameslink as an extension north of Bedford?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Isn’t that pretty much the definition of an intercity service, especially one that connects the capital to two regional cities.

No, I mean SWR’s Portsmouth services do that, so do it’s West of England line services, so do it’s services going through Winchester and Southampton, so does LNR’s services to Birmingham. All of those also run with faster calling patterns than the SWR Metro and inner LNR/LO services. They’re not Intercity services, surely?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2024 ==

How would you factor the Connect service into this? Annex it to the Intercity operation as an all-stopper service or transfer it to Thameslink as an extension north of Bedford?

Yes it would be run by the IC operation if it was a clean split with no transferring, but I’m not trying to advocate it, I’m simply saying it’d be a hell of a lot easier to split EMR than GWR these days.

 

[Manutd1999]

We could have much debate about if LNER taking over the Northern services around Leeds would be a good thing as they are both owned by the same owner (DfT).

I think it depends heavily on the working arrangements. If a hypothetical LNER regional operation was able to share crew and maybe even some rolling stock with the Intercity operation, then there would be clear advantages.

However, if union agreements and the like require the services to be operated by separate crew, the whole venture ends up as 2x operations under one name and the benefits are lost.

 

[43096]

Small point, despite their branding I do not personally think GA’s Norwich service can be considered an Intercity service. It’s just a more limited stop version of their other GEML services with stock kitted out with first class and a buffet.

It’s more of an InterCity service than, say, Paddington-Bristol/Swansea. Better on board environment and a proper buffet rather than a slops wagon that never comes through.

 

[QSK19]

I’m simply saying it’d be a hell of a lot easier to split EMR than GWR these days.

Oh definitely in agreement there! The task of splitting up GWR makes where to move the Connect operation to look a piece of cake!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s more of an InterCity service than, say, Paddington-Bristol/Swansea. Better on board environment and a proper buffet rather than a slops wagon that never comes through.

Better on board environment according to you, but you can’t decide that for everyone. I don’t think a 745 feels like a long-distance train in the slightest, and whether or not it has a trolley is hardly a distinguishing factor as to whether a train is an Intercity service or not. Paddington to Swansea reaches 125mph travelling 200 miles. Hilarious that it should be deemed less of an Intercity service because it has a trolley!

 

[irish_rail]

GWR and EMRs current operations are the combination of separate and Regional TOCs just as you suggest for now, until 2006 and 2007 respectively.

First Great Western starting 2006 (now GWR ofc) was combination of the original Intercity operator First Great Western (HST/180 HSS), and the patches of former Regional operators Thames Trains/GW Link (165/166 Thames Valley) and Wessex Trains (143/150/153/158 Western)

East Midlands Trains starting 2007 (now EMR) was the combination of Intercity operator Midlands Mainline (HST/222) with the eastern routes of Regional operator Central Trains (153/156/158 - all 170s went to LM/XC)

Now if these TOCs were to be split into Regional and Intercity again, logic would suggest EMR would be split much the same way it was pre 2006, as the now exclusive 222 Intercity operation is almost completely separate from the 158 & 170 Regional operation. I’m not saying it SHOULD be split, I’m just saying this is likely how they’d do it.

But GWR is a different kettle of fish because of just how blurred the distinctions have become between the three TOCs it was born out of. Class The Thames Turbos are now completely shared among former Thames Trains and Wessex Trains routes, and often swap between patches for maintenance reasons. These would be very awkward to permanently split, the 165s especially. The Thames Valley 387s regularly run on HSS network services to Cardiff and provide good flexibility in place of 80x unavailability. And most importantly of all, the HST replacements, the 80x - originally intended for the HSS services only - run not just 99% of the HSS services but also all of the Cardiff - Taunton, Cardiff/Gloucester - Plymouth and many Devon and Cornwall Regional services that would formerly have been Wessex Trains routes.

The spreading around of the Turbos and IETs, and to a lesser extent the 387s, really make it difficult to split GWR back into those three areas. Had it been 2018, and everything was still rigid with Turbos on Thames Trains patch, HSTs on HSS and Sprinters and Pacers on Wessex Trains patch, it would have been far easier.

Sadly I think this speaks volumes in the dumbing down of the GWR intercity product. The fact that it is so blurred isn't that the local services are such high quality, it is the fact the intercity service is now such poor quality and feels more like an inter regional local train. In the south west now, the local all stations stoppers are formed of the very same rolling stock (5 car 80x) that forms the so called crack expresses to London.

I do see the benefit of the combined franchise however, especially in terms of crew resources, however its just a shame the intercity service has been allowed to slide in terms of passenger comfort. I'd argue the GWR IET fleet needs a decent refurb along the lines of what Avanti or EMR are getting, to help improve the quality of the intercity product.

 

[43096]

Better on board environment according to you, but you can’t decide that for everyone. I don’t think a 745 feels like a long-distance train in the slightest, and whether or not it has a trolley is hardly a distinguishing factor as to whether a train is an Intercity service or not. Paddington to Swansea reaches 125mph travelling 200 miles. Hilarious that it should be deemed less of an Intercity service because it has a trolley!

A proper catering service is a key element of an InterCity train.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Sadly I think this speaks volumes in the dumbing down of the GWR intercity product. The fact that it is so blurred isn't that the local services are such high quality, it is the fact the intercity service is now such poor quality and feels more like an inter regional local train. In the south west now, the local all stations stoppers are formed of the very same rolling stock (5 car 80x) that forms the so called crack expresses to London.

I do see the benefit of the combined franchise however, especially in terms of crew resources, however its just a shame the intercity service has been allowed to slide in terms of passenger comfort. I'd argue the GWR IET fleet needs a decent refurb along the lines of what Avanti or EMR are getting, to help improve the quality of the intercity product.

You could look at it in that pessimistic way, or you could look at it that GWR have given their Western regional services a fantastic upgrade in terms of space/capacity and facilities by using Intercity stock on what was often booked for a 150/1!

Aside from the unfortunate availability issues at the moment leading to short formations, the is absolutely nothing about a 9 or 10 carriage IET - other than the replacement of a static buffet (a really, really tiresome obsession) with a trolley - that suggests a dumbing down.

If we look at the objective improvements (aka not subjective factors like seat comfort), there is, in fact, largely increased legroom, a more open saloon, greater capacity, far superior acceleration and journey times, electric running, automatic doors, more spacious tray tables including those that fit laptops far more generously, saloon doors that don’t open and slam on their own, a far more efficient and easy to read reservation system, no more creaking carriages and shade from the sun at standard class windows. Nothing has definitively slidden in terms of passenger comfort.

If you don’t like Fainsa Sophia seats, that’s your personal taste. I didn’t like the HST Grammars that restricted my view of the carriage and were uncomfortable as someone slightly too short for the headrest dip to be positioned correctly.

 

[QSK19]

whether or not it has a trolley is hardly a distinguishing factor as to whether a train is an Intercity service or not. Paddington to Swansea reaches 125mph travelling 200 miles. Hilarious that it should be deemed less of an Intercity service because it has a trolley!

I seem to remember somebody suggesting that vending machines would have been sufficient for the 810s, never mind a trolley. By that logic, EMR would have no Intercity service, rather a very beefed-up and fast Regional service

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I seem to remember somebody suggesting that vending machines would have been sufficient for the 810s, never mind a trolley. By that logic, EMR would have no Intercity service, rather a very beefed-up and fast Regional service

I'm just waiting now for a smart Alec to pounce on my reference to the Swansea service's speed and ask if that therefore makes Southeastern High Speed IC

 

[43096]

By that logic, EMR would have no Intercity service, rather a very beefed-up and fast Regional service

Which is exactly what it is. The Swiss would deem it an IR (InterRegio), with the Corby service being an RE (Regional Express).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Which is exactly what it is. The Swiss would deem it an IR (InterRegio), with the Corby service being an RE (Regional Express).

The Swiss also provide trains with steps up to the train and benches without armrests or full-sized tables on many IC services, so they're not perfect themselves.

 

[irish_rail]

You could look at it in that pessimistic way, or you could look at it that GWR have given their Western regional services a fantastic upgrade in terms of space/capacity and facilities by using Intercity stock on what was often booked for a 150/1!

Aside from the unfortunate availability issues at the moment leading to short formations, the is absolutely nothing about a 9 or 10 carriage IET - other than the replacement of a static buffet (a really, really tiresome obsession) with a trolley - that suggests a dumbing down.

If we look at the objective improvements (aka not subjective factors like seat comfort), there is, in fact, largely increased legroom, a more open saloon, greater capacity, far superior acceleration and journey times, electric running, automatic doors, more spacious tray tables including those that fit laptops far more generously, saloon doors that don’t open and slam on their own, a far more efficient and easy to read reservation system, no more creaking carriages and shade from the sun at standard class windows. Nothing has definitively slidden in terms of passenger comfort.

If you don’t like Fainsa Sophia seats, that’s your personal taste. I didn’t like the HST Grammars that restricted my view of the carriage and were uncomfortable as someone slightly too short for the headrest dip to be positioned correctly.

My point is that the 80x stock that EMR and Avanti are getting looks to be much nicer inside with a better overall ambience. The same is true of LNER and TPX 80x compared with GWR stock which is by far the runt of the litter. It feels as if Hitachi has just given up with the fleet now as they are mainly just working short hop services anyway on regional stuff.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

My point is that the 80x stock that EMR and Avanti are getting looks to be much nicer inside with a better overall ambience. The same is true of LNER and TPX 80x compared with GWR stock which is by far the runt of the litter. It feels as if Hitachi has just given up with the fleet now as they are mainly just working short hop services anyway on regional stuff.

I’m not sure what about TPE 80x is nicer than GWR’s. The dull blue fabric and plain walls of the TPE 80x make it look like a prototype!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It’s more of an InterCity service than, say, Paddington-Bristol/Swansea. Better on board environment and a proper buffet rather than a slops wagon that never comes through.

Why does an Intercity train need a buffet car? There are plenty of services designated “Intercity” across Europe that have at trolley catering on Intercity services instead of a buffet car or indeed in the case of Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands no catering

- France
- Belgium
- Luxembourg
- Netherlands
- Germany
- Austria
- Ireland
- Denmark

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2024 ==

A proper catering service is a key element of an InterCity train.

Which doesn’t (and isn’t in many European countries) have to be provided by a buffet car.