However if a train carries large numbers of standing passengers for parts of its journey, then a layout with large vestibules at one and two thirds is far more comfortable for both standees and those seated. Transpennine is a classic example and the 170s used on Cardiff-Nottingham are another, as they effectively function as commuter services for Birmingham.
I agree that the suburban layout is better for standees, but my point is that TOCs should be trying to avoid ANY standees on all services other than surbuban services with frequent stops. Thus, if they were doing their job properly, there would be no standees on regional express services and thus the suburban door layout is not good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think even for London Waterloo the Passengers In Excess Of Capacity targets do not include any standing allowance for services with over 20 minutes between stops. On the Cardiff-Nottingham, Cheltenham to (University) Birmingham is over 30 minutes and Birmingham to Tamworth is 20 minutes, so apart from between University and New Street there shouldn't really be any standees. Similarly the fast TPE services, calling only at Huddersfield between Leeds and Manchester, are plenty fast enough to make the new mark 5 coaches and class 800s the right choice in my view (and with four of those fast trips an hour, 185s on the slow services should be easy enough to avoid for passengers who want to use the more intercity-style stock). There are stops closer together than 20 minutes on the Swansea-Manchester services, but I still think they are longer than TOCs should really be expecting pepole to stand.
A problem with making Manchester services 'Intercity' is there's a lack of paths for an additional semi-fast, so having an express to Cardiff and a semi-fast to Shrewsbury probably wouldn't work. Would a Shrewsbury-Hereford semi-fast be an option?
Good point; when I said that some of the Manchesters could become '
INTERCITY', I meant in terms of on-board facilities (justified by passenger numbers) in the form of first class and a buffet (like Gerald). In terms of the calling pattern, I think they are stuck as 'regional express'; fast where they can be but calling at Ludlow and Leominster because there's not enough slower services over that section.
The NR Wales Route plan for the Marches is to accommodate 2 "fast" train paths per hour between Shrewsbury and Newport with one freight path per hour along with a one "slow" passenger path per hour between Shrewsbury and Craven Arms and one "slow" passenger path per hour between Abergavenny and Newport.
I still think that southern 'slow' path needs to be extended north to Hereford, which would allow passengers from the stopper to reach Birmingham and Oxford (via Worcester) with just one change at Hereford, and possibly allow the Manchesters to drop the Abergavenny stop. Are there any plans for a turnback at Craven Arms, and/or some additional double track on the northern end of the Heart Of Wales Line to accomodate the hourly stopping service north of Craven Arms?
A Swiss Taktarfhplan style service would see an hourly Manchester to Swansea Regional Express service and an hourly Crewe to Cardiff stopper as the optimum for the route.
Either that, or the Manchester-Swansea with an hourly Cardiff-Shrewsbury or Cardiff-Chester instead of the Cardiff-Crewe is what I'd suggest (unlike Holyhead, through links between Wrexham and Cardiff might be important enough for an hourly service, but that makes a neat half-hourly pattern b***** difficult to fit round the Birmingham-Wrexham service given that and the Manchester are probably both fixed paths). Would dropping the freight path six times a day (3 each way) allow 3 'national unity' Holyhead-Cardiff expresses per day to fit down the marches alongside the fast Manchester and slower Crewe/Shrewsbury/Chester-Cardiff services?
