What should be considered 'Inter-City' under GBR?

[TreacleMiller]

So will there be intercity services out of Waterloo If there is a southern area of intercity?

No idea.

It was just being discussed as a "Whats happening next" on a safety day. Said manager has been doing some bits and bobs already and said the plan seems to be to start with ECML and if successful use as a template elsewhere.

 

[renegademaster]

Will getting lumped into intercity mean fare jumps for the services thst dont fit the description neatly but get designated it anyway? What about stuff like all line rover?

 

[Manutd1999]

the plan seems to be to start with ECML and if successful use as a template elsewhere.

That's by far the easiest approach. Rebrand LNER as Intercity then gradually merge-in Avanti and the long distance parts of GWR, EMR and XC as the franchises end.

I would consider a setting up a "Regional Express" brand alongside it for some of the slower services such as London-Lincoln, Avanti's London-Birmingham-Scotland etc, but that's a fairly minor detail.

 

[Transilien]

I would consider a setting up a "Regional Express" brand alongside it for some of the slower services such as London-Lincoln, Avanti's London-Birmingham-Scotland etc, but that's a fairly minor detail.

These services use the exact same rolling stock as the faster routes. London-Birmingham-Scotland is just as much Intercity as via the Trent Valley line, there is no need for these services that skip many stations and have many sections of 125 running to be classified differently.

 

[miklcct]

These services use the exact same rolling stock as the faster routes. London-Birmingham-Scotland is just as much Intercity as via the Trent Valley line, there is no need for these services that skip many stations and have many sections of 125 running to be classified differently.

Regional Express should apply to routes like London - Brighton, London - Corby, London - Dover, Cardiff - Portsmouth, etc.

London - Birmingham - Scotland is clearly intercity is it is just two intercity services (London - Birmingham and Birmingham - Edinburgh) combined into one.

 

[renegademaster]

Everyone just puts their origin and destination into trainline and lets the algorithim do the rest . I dont really think in the modern era their is much need for branding beyond "National Rail". If trains has propper train numbers displayed on the sides their wouldnt be any need for branding for navigation purposes. People highlighting the need for a difference between the WCML fast and slow services forget that LNWR isnt supposed to be used as "the cheap one to Birmingham" but for short journeys along the WCML, and GBR should really be discouraging their use for that purpose.

 

[irish_rail]

Prepare to be disappointed I suspect.

I expect an East / West / South and Cross County Intercity branding operation to pop up. I doubt it will be as per legacy BR but the name will return. This is based on a managers discussion and presentation from those currently in S/GBR.

I've heard it mooted that GWR will be lumped in with Anglia Intercity and Southern intercity (ie stuff out of Waterloo) creating a bizarre mish mash of unconnected non similar operations to be lumped together as they apparently don't sit easily anywhere else. Meanwhile if you are right and their is a Cross country intercity then there will be absolutely no streamlining of XC operations in the south of the country . It seems like Labour are happy to let the WCML and ECML be the flagship intercity operations and the rest is just an uncomfortable afterthought. How true this is I don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everyone just puts their origin and destination into trainline and lets the algorithim do the rest . I dont really think in the modern era their is much need for branding beyond "National Rail". If trains has propper train numbers displayed on the sides their wouldnt be any need for branding for navigation purposes. People highlighting the need for a difference between the WCML fast and slow services forget that LNWR isnt supposed to be used as "the cheap one to Birmingham" but for short journeys along the WCML, and GBR should really be discouraging their use for that purpose.

Then you will narrow the market. The LNR services appeal to people who wouldn't pay Avanti's prices (which, if fare reform a la LNER is applied will go up a load more) - they are people who would otherwise drive their old banger, go by coach or not go at all.

The principle of regional services offering the same journey for cheaper as a "bolt on" to their local role occurs all over the world by nationalised railways and is a good thing. It is not competition, it is market broadening.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Inter City brand is dead (and has been for 25 years) and GBR shouldn't be resurrecting legacy things "just cos that's what BR did".

Is it dead? It's a name that's used throughout Europe to describe express trains between major centres of population. I'd say it's an enduring brand because it does what it says on the tin.

It doesn't mean that InterCity should also involve Executive livery and the swallow motif.

As for what should happen going forward, it comes down to the age-old conversation about whether you differentiate by route or by market. Sectorisation was about differentiating by market. The privatised model started out like that also. But it has, in time, gone back to differentiating by route.

There are pros and cons to both. The big pro of differentiating by route is in disruption, the big pro of differentiating by sector is in marketing and price differentiation. Sectorisation lets you have the expensive "luxury" brand without completely pricing the budget end of the market off the trains.

Gatwick Express certainly made more sense when it was in InterCity...

NWR isnt supposed to be used as "the cheap one to Birmingham" but for short journeys along the WCML, and GBR should really be discouraging their use for that purpose.

It broadens the market and the revenue from the 'cheap' passengers helps support the frequency, especially north of Northampton. We saw similar on the GEML back when NSE/FGE were separate to IC/Anglia.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With reference to ICising former Network SouthEast services, there's a good reason BR kept NSE separate from other areas - the classic fast/slow pattern is much less prevalent, but rather NSE tended to do this sort of pattern:

If we have stations A - B - C, you'd have a stopper A-B and then a train that runs fast A-B then stopper to C.

This works really well where you've got one common core destination rather than a spread out pattern, and should not change on the basis of ideology (much as I am a fan of train categories). Germany notably did used to use this pattern in cities with S-Bahnen and they called it StadtExpress, though I think they're all now REs.

The one obvious IC I can think of that would work south of London is the Brighton Express, presently aka Gatwick Express, as that is a true fast service.

Having said that, I can't see a big issue with including this sort of service in a middle "express" category. We don't have the funding mechanism differential Germany has.

I would say IC needs to be a complete service proposition - faster services, 2+2 in Standard, 2+1 in First, seat reservations available and some sort of catering. As a side example I could see Liverpool-Newcastle 2tph fast as proper IC services as well as Manchester-Scotland, but not the rest of TPE which would just be Express.

Weymouth is an oddity which could be IC (if they upgraded 1st back to 2+1 and put the trolley back) or Express. Salisbury I'd have as Express even though it's a stopper on the outer reaches.

 

[RT4038]

Then you will narrow the market. The LNR services appeal to people who wouldn't pay Avanti's prices (which, if fare reform a la LNER is applied will go up a load more) - they are people who would otherwise drive their old banger, go by coach or not go at all.

The principle of regional services offering the same journey for cheaper as a "bolt on" to their local role occurs all over the world by nationalised railways and is a good thing. It is not competition, it is market broadening.

In particular to induce (by cheaper fares) some of the traffic to use poorly used slower local services, which would otherwise likely be attenuated or withdrawn completely, and minimising the need to expensively augment the express services

 

[renegademaster]

I

Then you will narrow the market. The LNR services appeal to people who wouldn't pay Avanti's prices (which, if fare reform a la LNER is applied will go up a load more) - they are people who would otherwise drive their old banger, go by coach or not go at all.

The principle of regional services offering the same journey for cheaper as a "bolt on" to their local role occurs all over the world by nationalised railways and is a good thing. It is not competition, it is market broadening.

It means people who want to make short hops on the WCML have to squeeze through crowds of London Birmingham commuters. Ideally the solution to Avanti being expensive and full is longer fast Birminghan trains, not dumping people onto local trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In particular to induce (by cheaper fares) some of the traffic to use poorly used slower local services, which would otherwise likely be attenuated or withdrawn completely.

If we compare what went before, I don't think the Trent Valley local service would be 1tph were it not for the through passengers. You might manage to justify a 0.5tph Rugby-Stafford stopper, but it'd be nearly empt even as a 4-car.

It is true that slower isn't cheaper, but that's only if the service is completely standalone and serves no other purpose.

 

[renegademaster]

traffic to use poorly used slower local services,

Theirs not that many "slow" trains that duplicate proper intercity routes without lots of changes, and where they do , Elizabeth Line and LNWR, you can hardly call them poorly used

 

[Bletchleyite]

It means people who want to make short hops on the WCML have to squeeze through crowds of London Birmingham commuters.

Almost nobody commutes London-Birmingham at all, let alone on a LNR service taking two hours. It's leisure travel which is highly price sensitive.

Ideally the solution to Avanti being expensive and full is longer fast Birminghan trains, not dumping people onto local trains.

But then you'd have to drop the price significantly, and then your income reduces significantly because the people who would pay more pay less instead.

"But Advances" doesn't work any more - most businesses mandate the use of Advances where available these days, they are no longer a primarily leisure product.

Theirs not that many "slow" trains that duplicate proper intercity routes without lots of changes, and where they do , Elizabeth Line and LNWR, you can hardly call them poorly used

WMT Trent Valley services would be one man, dog and bicycle were it not for the through service to London and the through traffic. It used to be a 153 about five times a day way back when. What it's become is a massive success that has attracted huge amounts of traffic from coaches and cars.

There is definitely a case, where these services exist, for differential pricing to remain under BR. It exists in Germany, France and Italy too.

 

[renegademaster]

WMT Trent Valley services would be one man, dog and bicycle were it not for the through service to London

That's not a competitor to Avanti though in the same way as the Euston-New Street though, thats fast to rugby and then a stopper, which is the kinda service that makes putting everything into Silos hard

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a competitor to Avanti though in the same way as the Euston-New Street though

It absolutely is in terms of how people use it (it has come much more to the fore with Trainline taking splits into the mainstream, and there are some through fares to e.g. Manchester).

It's not direct, but it carries a significant amount of Euston<->Manchester/Liverpool traffic with a change at Crewe (sometimes, ironically, onto Avanti).

The concept exists elsewhere too but less visible. LNER's York semifast is basically the same thing, and I expect EMR Connect will become it once the wires get to Leicester and it can be extended there. Of course LNER like Advances so they don't offer cheap walk ups like WMT do, but the Advances on that service are generally considerably cheaper than on the faster trains. Another example is Avanti offering much cheaper London-Glasgow tickets on the via Birmingham services than the faster ones. It's a solid concept for widening your market without significantly denting your premium revenue, which is why it's so common worldwide.

 

[Tetchytyke]

With reference to ICising former Network SouthEast services, there's a good reason BR kept NSE separate from other areas - the classic fast/slow pattern is much less prevalent, but rather NSE tended to do this sort of pattern:

If we have stations A - B - C, you'd have a stopper A-B and then a train that runs fast A-B then stopper to C.

NSE at the outer reaches always seemed a bit arbitrary, and was probably about operational convenience as much as anything. London-Weymouth was always much more of an 'InterCity' service, even the 442s built for NSE had a buffet and a proper 2+1 first class. The 444s were the same- end doors, 2+1 first class, catering- when they came into service.

 

[miklcct]

Then you will narrow the market. The LNR services appeal to people who wouldn't pay Avanti's prices (which, if fare reform a la LNER is applied will go up a load more) - they are people who would otherwise drive their old banger, go by coach or not go at all.

If the cheap LNR services don't exist between Manchester and London I will likely go by coach or not go at all. I still have a 26-30 Railcard and even with the discount, a coach fare is around a third to a fourth of discounted Avanti Advance fare booked at the same time.

I have decided to go by coach for my upcoming trip to Nottingham because of the lack of cheap fares on EMR Intercity, also the journey time of the coach is similar to the train between North London and Nottingham and it saves me a change at Bedford as well.

Even with Advance tickets, intercity trains in the UK are not cheap to use and are much less convenient compared to coaches which make a stop at Finchley Road, saving the need of going to London. If intercity trains have a stop at West Hampstead / Finsbury Park / Wembley Central the balance may tip for my favour because it will mean half an hour saved for much of North London.

 

[RailWonderer]

With reference to ICising former Network SouthEast services, there's a good reason BR kept NSE separate from other areas - the classic fast/slow pattern is much less prevalent, but rather NSE tended to do this sort of pattern:

If we have stations A - B - C, you'd have a stopper A-B and then a train that runs fast A-B then stopper to C.

This works really well where you've got one common core destination rather than a spread out pattern, and should not change on the basis of ideology (much as I am a fan of train categories). Germany notably did used to use this pattern in cities with S-Bahnen and they called it StadtExpress, though I think they're all now REs.

The one obvious IC I can think of that would work south of London is the Brighton Express, presently aka Gatwick Express, as that is a true fast service.

Having said that, I can't see a big issue with including this sort of service in a middle "express" category. We don't have the funding mechanism differential Germany has.

I would say IC needs to be a complete service proposition - faster services, 2+2 in Standard, 2+1 in First, seat reservations available and some sort of catering. As a side example I could see Liverpool-Newcastle 2tph fast as proper IC services as well as Manchester-Scotland, but not the rest of TPE which would just be Express.

Weymouth is an oddity which could be IC (if they upgraded 1st back to 2+1 and put the trolley back) or Express. Salisbury I'd have as Express even though it's a stopper on the outer reaches.

Two and a half decades of privatisation have meant TOCs have ordered stock uniquely for their own patch of grass so the offering is inconsistent everywhere. A five hour London - Penzance with only a trolley and a three hour London - Weymouth with 2+2 first class and no catering vs a sub two hour London - Norwich with 2+1 first and a buffet.

If GBR was to take brand consistency seriously it would take a lot of money to have all rolling stock in consistent liveries and interior specs for S-bahn/commuter, Regio and InterRegio/Regional and Regional Express, and InterCity. If you wanted to neaten up all services you would need new calling patterns. The IC Waterloo - Exeter would need to call only at Woking (if at all), Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Yeovil, Honiton and Exeter with a regional picking up the extra stops. Instead we have a half hourly calling at most stations and some not going the entire distance.

Some changes would need changed timetables and then you have the issue with infrastructure. Some areas would need more passing loops, four tracking and more rolling stock to provide a more consistent offering. Our service provision is about being efficient with the infrastructure we have which is more realistic. In Europe they expand the infrastucture to meet the uniformity of the service they want to or would like to provide.

 

[Krokodil]

I dont really think in the modern era their is much need for branding beyond "National Rail".

The DfT just wanted to paint everything grey (and GWR's first 80x were delivered as such). I do want to see a bit more colour than grey everywhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DfT just wanted to paint everything grey (and GWR's first 80x were delivered as such). I do want to see a bit more colour than grey everywhere.

To be honest the "reverse BR" livery the 350s carried new (grey with a blue window band) looked quite understatedly good.

As for IC, I'd use the LNER branding - exactly as is but replace lNer with iNtercity, i.e. still in capitals but with the "flash" on the N. Despite all the fares stuff it's still somehow managing to be a respected brand, unlike Avanti which is now so toxic it just needs to be binned off.

 

[FGWHST43009]

To be honest the "reverse BR" livery the 350s carried new (grey with a blue window band) looked quite understatedly good.

As for IC, I'd use the LNER branding - exactly as is but replace lNer with iNtercity, i.e. still in capitals but with the "flash" on the N. Despite all the fares stuff it's still somehow managing to be a respected brand, unlike Avanti which is now so toxic it just needs to be binned off.

I agree, LNER's branding implies a degree of quality but I think Avanti is just too flashy. I don't like the new livery on the Pendolinos, I think Virgin Trains designed the livery to fit with the design of the trains. Maybe a mix of LNER and GWR branding, GWR does look like a nice brand but the quality on the IET's isn't great. I'd like to see a brand like this applied to CrossCountry. I think XC should become part of a high-quality intercity brand. For me, I'd like to see XC's services become more like fast intercity services rather than semi-fast interregional.

 

[JamesT]

I agree, LNER's branding implies a degree of quality but I think Avanti is just too flashy. I don't like the new livery on the Pendolinos, I think Virgin Trains designed the livery to fit with the design of the trains. Maybe a mix of LNER and GWR branding, GWR does look like a nice brand but the quality on the IET's isn't great. I'd like to see a brand like this applied to CrossCountry. I think XC should become part of a high-quality intercity brand. For me, I'd like to see XC's services become more like fast intercity services rather than semi-fast interregional.

XC becoming limited stop intercity requires other operators to step up their services to provide the connectivity XC currently does. Is there space on the network for that?

 

[JonathanH]

XC becoming limited stop intercity requires other operators to step up their services to provide the connectivity XC currently does. Is there space on the network for that?

It also needs some places to be identified where XC won't stop despite the historical practice. XC long distance services don't really stop at more stations than they did in BR days.

 

[blueberry11]

Surprised no one has mentioned Diss yet. It only has a population of 10,000, and in my view, is one of the only UK stations exclusively serving intercity trains. Even more so when going between Diss and Stowmarket (population 21,000) as both of them are (market) towns. Plus, almost every service from Norwich stops at Diss and Manningtree.

Additionally, Reading is legally a town despite having a population 175,000 or 337,000 urban so technically, the London - Reading - Bristol is also not an intercity service per se.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Surprised no one has mentioned Diss yet. It only has a population of 10,000, and in my view, is one of the only UK stations exclusively serving intercity trains. Even more so when going between Diss and Stowmarket (population 21,000) as both of them are (market) towns. Plus, almost every service from Norwich stops at Diss and Manningtree.

Pewsey usually qualifies as the smallest town only served by intercity trains.

 

[eldomtom2]

Something like the 'Pembroke Coast Express' is (or should be) a named train - a once daily (or less) train between two points with fewer stops (or, at least, no more stops) than any other on that route.

I disagree that a named train needs to be once daily or less - I think a system like Japan's where all express trains with the same stopping pattern share the same name (with numbers to differentiate) is the best from both a marketing and passenger information view.

But I'm not sure any "slightly reimagined" version of historical intericty services can really be justified.
In a world where essentially all trains are multiple units with increasingly similar performance characteristics, there seems to be precious little to differentiate "Intercity" or similar trains from others.

I think the distinctions have become so small as to have been rendered entirely meaningless.
In my view we now have "metro" and "non-metro" and that's about it, beyond minor edge cases like sleepers.

In terms of passenger experience there seems to be little to fundamentally differentiate a Class 185 from a Class 80x or any other modern "long distance" configured train.
They've converged under technical advances and economic pressures.

These services use the exact same rolling stock as the faster routes.

These posts seem to be taking the position that "Intercity" is primarily a matter of rolling stock, which I don't think is the common understanding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Additionally, Reading is legally a town despite having a population 175,000 or 337,000 urban so technically, the London - Reading - Bristol is also not an intercity service per se.

London is a city. Bristol is a city. A fast train runs between them. How isn't it inter-city?

Most (all?) InterCity routes also call at towns along the way.

(Crikey, that level of purism means InterCity stickers on the District Line, doesn't it? )

 

[JonathanH]

A fast train runs between them.

Some certainly question whether it is fast or not.