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.
Well, maybe that should have been "significantly reimagined" - or maybe the InterCity name should just be left on preserved stock. However, with some more-local TOCs removing first class provision entirely, perhaps that will end up being the thing which differentiates InterCity services under GBR. InterCity services would then just be any limited-stop service which has first class provision (although, ideally, a buffet would also be provided).
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.
They've converged under technical advances and economic pressures.
I agree that there has been significant convergence; I call it 'creeping suburbanisation' as it has largely involved trains optimised for shorter distances and frequent stops being deployed on much longer runs. XC's use of class 170s on the Cardiff-Nottingham service being a case in point -
not a design I feel should be used on such a long run.
The economics of hot meals on trains on journeys as short as the UK's are extremely questionable.
What fraction of journeys on the system are longer than say 4 hours with a change of train?
I'm not sure many passengers will be denied an opportunity to have a meal at a somewhat reasonable hour.
Is it really a reasonalbe use of taxpayers money?
Well, I for one have certainly ended up having nothing but a flapjack off the trolley as an 'evening meal' because I couldn't find anywhere to eat at my destination and was very disatisified as a result. As for the economics, the question there is whether a buffet makes or loses money? Clearly, on a 2/3-car train there would not be sufficient demand to justify it, but TfW clearly think that upgrading to mark 4s with catering available on the Cardiff-Manchester route could bring in more revenue - so much so that they have diverted the sets away from two of the three Holyhead-Cardiff workings they were previously booked for.
Dwell times will always be a concern, because a platform blocked for an intercity train is not available for any other trains.
The railway is far too intensively operated to be messing around with things like that in the modern era.
Even so, a modern long distance train in the UK on routes widely considered to be "intercity" might expect to stop several times.
5 minutes of dwell time per station would add up rapidly.
Personally I've come around to the position that we should have a Class 730 style carriage in virtually every train formation to soak up the inevitable short distance passengers more efficiently. Analogously to the standing area near the disabled toilet in the Class 185.
I disagree with most of that. Yes, even an express service will still stop several times but if you don't have anyone standing (and on a long-distance service you really should make sure the train is long enough to avoid standees) even a class 158 can manage a dwell time of under 2 minutes at the quieter stations. If the dwell time is 5 minutes, that will be a busy station and just because a suburban unit like a class 185 will have a shorter dwell time than an express unit it will still be significantly longer than zero seconds. The
difference in dwell times between stock types will therefore be significantly less than 5 minutes per stop - it wouldn't surprise me if the difference between a class 197 and a class 175 at somewhere like Leominister is just seconds if enough coaches have been provided to avoid standees.
Well I'd argue the primary goal should probably be to reduce net subsidy to the industry, and the secondary goal is to grow traffic levels.
While both of those are laudable aims, I do wonder which should be ranked higher and whether the second should be rephrased as reducing car/van/lorry traffic on the roads (modal shift). There should certainly also be a third goal, to contribute to reducing the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions. This addition should probably the primary objective, with the other two considered secondary to it.
Our railways are one of the tools that we have to get people out of their cars and it needs to be a tempting offer.
Well said. This is why I simply cannot support the 'creeping suburbanisation' we have been seeing and why I feel strongly that the rolling stock used on Secondary Express / Regional Express services and long-distance Regional/Rural stoppers (such as the Cambrian Coast (if it didn't couple up to the Aberystwyth-Birmingham and therefore turn into a Regional Express itself) and Heart Of Wales lines) should have far more in common with InterCity stock than with Suburban/Metro stock. A long journey on a Turbostar, Electrostar, 195, 196 or 197 simply isn't very tempting (ok, neither is a long journey on a 9-car class 801 but in that case that is only because the seats are carp, the class has far more potential for long distance than the suburban units, if only the interior could be sorted).
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.
I don't think it is necessary to rush to make the service consistent. All I would do to start with is identify things that
are similar (eg. most Turbostars, Electrostars, 350s, 450s, 385s, Networkers, 331s, 195s, 197s etc. are fairly similar products - another grouping being classes 800-803, 805, 807, 810, 397, 897, 220, 221, 222 and 180) and brand them the same (within the group of similar units) so that they can be operated as a common pool where this is helpful.
Every existing and possible service will fit into one of seven broad train categories (EuroCity, InterCity, Night, InterRegional, Regional, Suburban, Metro). Most European nations have further sub-categories than this yet the public seems to handle it fine likely because they reduce the amount of information people have to read to understand service patterns and passenger facilities of a given train and people who don't need that information can just ignore it. Tickets only valid for certain classes is not imperative to there being publicly listed train categories.
Stopping patterns yes, but are there really all that many different levels of passenger facilities?
- toilet provision can be put into one of four categories:
- 85 or fewer seats per toilet, for intercity and inter-urban services
- 86-125 seats per toilet, for short distance / commuter services
- over 125 seats per toilet
- none at all
- catering provision can be put into one of three categories:
- full kitchen/buffet (hot and cold meals)
- trolley service (hot and cold drinks and cold snacks/sandwiches)
- none at all
- ambience (this might not be the best term) can be put into one of three categories:
- internal doors between saloon and vestibules/gangways, and toilets leading off vestibules not saloons
- no internal doors between saloon and vestibules/gangways
- walk-through wide gangways with no internal doors anywhere
and so on...
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.
That's not a named train - it's more like the London 'tube map' where you have different colour lines each with a 'line name' (such as the 'Victoria Line' or 'Circle Line'). I guess I don't have a problem with that concept being applied more widely if you're going to have a stricter clockface 'Takt' system (provided that any fast service is operated by express stock that doesn't prioritise standing room / dwell times as double-width doors-at-thirds do), but it's subtly different to the named train concept (of which the 'Pembroke Coast Express' is one example and the 'Flying Scotsman' and 'Cornish Riviera Express' are two more).
I don't think we can say that just because there is a loco + coaches consist, it would classify as an inter city route in future GBR / today. The stopping pattern has barely changed, nor have journey times. It's still a very regional, secondary service.
Secondary service... Actually, maybe primary/secondary is a better way to describe routes than regional, suburban etc.? In which case, something like Aberystwyth-Birmingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth or Liverpool-Norwich which, up to now, I have known as 'Regional Express' would become 'Secondary Express'; while London-Swansea, London-Manchester, Edinburgh-Plymouth and London-Edinburgh and would be 'Primary Express'. That releases the 'InterCity' name to be applied more in terms of the facilities provided by the rolling stock than the actual stock used. Manchester-Swansea would be a 'Secondary Express' but any services with buffet and first class provision could be described as 'Secondary InterCity' instead.
If we look at most of Europe it's not some dogmatic "can't call at towns" nonsense (nor was BR, after all) but a service proposition - a reasonably fast train with a known level of comfort and on-board service e.g. catering.
This has value - and EMR agree, for what it's worth as they use it - otherwise you end up with things like XC where you can have wildly different levels of service under the same brand. If you look at something like LNER or Avanti it's fairly consistent (aside from the time-of-day First Class service differentiation), for instance.
Sounds sensible.
You wouldn't advocate all trains calling at all stops on the Trent valley?
That's probably not the best example; if and when HS2 (for want of a better name) reaches Crewe I would have whatever top-tier classic line services remain either route via Wolverhampton and Birmingham or call at Rugeley TV, Lichfield TV, Tamworth, Nuneaton, AND Rugby if using the Trent Valley route. I would still use stock with end-doors for this, but ultimately given the need that may end up being something more like an electric gangwayed version of a class 175 (no buffet or first class) than an 11-car Voyager. In other words, I would make a post-HS2 WCML more like the GWML (still having express-style rolling stock, but more frequent stops such as Swindon, Reading and Didcot on the Western) than the WCML is today.
) then the IR train is actually IC. Its definitely not Regional Express since its a core intercity service.
