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

[LCRTrainfan979]

It's only done it on London-Newcastle/Morpeth/Edinburgh and a set of nearby stations to prevent workarounds. I suspect it won't work quite as well when the trial expands to shorter journeys.

Well even then, they probably won't want to get rid of absolutely all walk up fares. They obviously have got rid of some affordable walk up fares, but getting rid of them won't be politically possible for some rich people who can afford the overpriced walk up fares, who might forget to book beforehand, and need to get going ASAP. If you didn't do that, you might get news stories about politicians being stuck because they didn't book in advance and failed to bribe a guard. Even them, LNER now and GBR in the future will still want to feign the appearance of "flexibility" to people who don't know the system.

With that latter point, sadly it will expand to shorter journeys, and the trial will be considered a massive "success" because the outcome will have already been decided before the trial takes effect. Even then with shorter journeys, they'll be contactless by that point, so no one will be buying anytime tickets for such journeys by that point.

 

[JLH4AC]

In terms of bang-for-buck and quick results, the answer is Active Travel and fifteen minute neighbourhoods. Eliminating those 1-3 mile trips which make up nearly half of all car journeys and making it more practical to walk, wheel (as in wheelchairs) or cycle instead. Cheaper to install and much cheaper to maintain. Much quicker to implement than rail infrastructure too (how long has Portishead been waiting since reopening was first mooted?) and even a small modal shift has a large impact on congestion which in turn means reduced tailpipe emissions. That's the one avenue that local authorities are able to get funding these days.

When the NAO audited active travel schemes they found many are poor or unknown value for money, DfT not having a plan in place to monitor benefits across all active travel investments to ensure that they are good enough quality (I.e not being largely cosmetic changes to unsafe roads or there not being major gaps in the scheme's coverage.) being the main issue besides active travel schemes being rushed during COVID. Likewise the National Survey for Wales has found that there is no evidence to suggest that the funding increases following the passing of the Active Travel (Wales) Act have led to any significant increase in active travel. Active travel schemes can only do so much without investment in public transport, multiple studies have shown that multi modal integration with public transport is among the best ways to increase public transport use and bicycling.

I'd sooner have a vending machine. They can offer everything a trolley has and possibly more (I wonder if anyone has invented one for hot food). The hot drinks can be of better quality than instant coffee too. On top of which, it would be available from first train to last train.

Vending machines for hot food do exist in some UK hotels, work canteens and petrol stations. It would be a good idea for GBR to put cold drinks/snacks vending machines along with Costa Express vending machines/self-serve counters on trains as part of a pilot scheme to see if there is much demand for that form of service on board trains, and if is it successfully do the same for hot food vending machines.

 

[Krokodil]

Does that include alcoholic drinks (legally)?

I suppose that if there was that much demand for alcohol there must be a way of getting the machine to check an ID against a face. Or just do what the supermarkets do and make the customer wait for the guard to come down and authorise the sale.

I can live without the alcoholic drinks though. A more pressing concern for me is that I get passengers asking if there is anywhere they can get some water and I can offer them nothing.

Also what about soup/ noodle/ porridge pots?

I'm pretty sure that there are no technical challenges here. I'm more interested in seeing if a vending machine can manage ready meals.

When the NAO audited active travel schemes they found many are poor or unknown value for money, DfT not having a plan in place to monitor benefits across all active travel investments to ensure that they are good enough quality (I.e not being largely cosmetic changes to unsafe roads or there not being major gaps in the scheme's coverage.) being the main issue besides active travel schemes being rushed during COVID. Likewise the National Survey for Wales has found that there is no evidence to suggest that the funding increases following the passing of the Active Travel (Wales) Act have led to any significant increase in active travel. Active travel schemes can only do so much without investment in public transport, multiple studies have shown that multi modal integration with public transport is among the best ways to increase public transport use and bicycling.

There are definitely issues with quality control. Active travel infrastructure needs to form a complete network, a combination of quiet streets and segregated paths - even if there's just a few metres of mixed traffic on a busy road you're not going to let your kids use it, are you? Unfortunately many councils just stick up some blue mixed-use path signs, paint Give Way markings at every side road (plus the odd "Cyclists Dismount" sign), maybe line out a few metres of the carriageway's gutter (never with yellow lines to stop parking of course) and finally dump users straight onto a busy road with no onward safe route to their destination. Then they wonder why no one uses them.

 

[IanXC]

I can't help but wonder if the premise of the question is wrong. Rather than asking "what should be considered Intercity under GBR" I think we are much more likely to be considering, 'after local devolution, is everything left over Intercity?"

If local mayors are to get the kind of commissioning powers that have been implied, then I can see us easily ending up with a system similar to that in Germany, national operator responsible for infrastructure, network timetable planning and intercity services, with local services controlled by local government.

On that basis I would not be surprised to find that the national operator ends up 'lumbered' with some cross region services purely as a result of structural issues. Are they part of an intercity business unit? If not are you proposing to create a business unit to operate a handful of oddball routes?

 

[JLH4AC]

I suppose that if there was that much demand for alcohol there must be a way of getting the machine to check an ID against a face. Or just do what the supermarkets do and make the customer wait for the guard to come down and authorise the sale.

I can live without the alcoholic drinks though. A more pressing concern for me is that I get passengers asking if there is anywhere they can get some water and I can offer them nothing.

Trains that have enough demand for catering to justify serving alcohol onboard could keep some catering staff onboard to restock the vending machines, provide limited table service, and do ID checks/sell alcoholic drinks.

A tap for drinking water could be put next to the coffee vending machine (Fed from the same fresh water tank.) if bottled water from a vending machine is deemed to be not good enough.

I'm pretty sure that there are no technical challenges here. I'm more interested in seeing if a vending machine can manage ready meals.

Vending machines that serve soups and porridge into cups do exist in the UK, and vending machines that serve heated boxed/potted foods exist in Japan (And likely elsewhere.). The vending machines for hot food in some UK hotels that I referred to earlier serve heated-up ready meals.

There are definitely issues with quality control. Active travel infrastructure needs to form a complete network, a combination of quiet streets and segregated paths - even if there's just a few metres of mixed traffic on a busy road you're not going to let your kids use it, are you? Unfortunately many councils just stick up some blue mixed-use path signs, paint Give Way markings at every side road (plus the odd "Cyclists Dismount" sign), maybe line out a few metres of the carriageway's gutter (never with yellow lines to stop parking of course) and finally dump users straight onto a busy road with no onward safe route to their destination. Then they wonder why no one uses them.

Better quality control would definitely help. Yeah active travel infrastructure needs to be a complete network to get a sufficient amount of people to use it which includes multi-modal integration to improved pubic transport systems.

 

[BayPaul]

I can't help but wonder if the premise of the question is wrong. Rather than asking "what should be considered Intercity under GBR" I think we are much more likely to be considering, 'after local devolution, is everything left over Intercity?"

If local mayors are to get the kind of commissioning powers that have been implied, then I can see us easily ending up with a system similar to that in Germany, national operator responsible for infrastructure, network timetable planning and intercity services, with local services controlled by local government.

On that basis I would not be surprised to find that the national operator ends up 'lumbered' with some cross region services purely as a result of structural issues. Are they part of an intercity business unit? If not are you proposing to create a business unit to operate a handful of oddball routes?

I completely agree. I can't see a 'regional railways' element to GBR, local brands are much more likely. Something like Norwich - Liverpool doesn't fit into any of those groups, so it would make sense for them to become part of intercity, and hopefully be prioritised for new or refurbished trains to meet the basic standards (probably just 1st class, seat reservations, wifi, at seat power, trolley service) of a long distance service.

 

[Western Lord]

I completely agree. I can't see a 'regional railways' element to GBR, local brands are much more likely. Something like Norwich - Liverpool doesn't fit into any of those groups, so it would make sense for them to become part of intercity, and hopefully be prioritised for new or refurbished trains to meet the basic standards (probably just 1st class, seat reservations, wifi, at seat power, trolley service) of a long distance service.

Norwich to Liverpool is not a long distance service, it's a collection of local services joined together for operational convenience and connectivity. Hardly anybody is doing the whole journey.

 

[A S Leib]

Hardly anybody is doing the whole journey.

~115 journeys per day are made between Norwich / Ely / Peterborough and Sheffield / Manchester / Liverpool, although I don't know how many of those are via London (or Doncaster), and that isn't a massive amount; slightly fewer journeys than between Truro and Paddington.

 

[Manutd1999]

I can't help but wonder if the premise of the question is wrong. Rather than asking "what should be considered Intercity under GBR" I think we are much more likely to be considering, 'after local devolution, is everything left over Intercity?"

If local mayors are to get the kind of commissioning powers that have been implied, then I can see us easily ending up with a system similar to that in Germany, national operator responsible for infrastructure, network timetable planning and intercity services, with local services controlled by local government.

On that basis I would not be surprised to find that the national operator ends up 'lumbered' with some cross region services purely as a result of structural issues. Are they part of an intercity business unit? If not are you proposing to create a business unit to operate a handful of oddball routes?

I agree but the devolution would have to be well thought-out. Most routes don't fit neatly into city regions, so devolving powers to the mayors is difficult. I think it would be better to have ~7 regions (North, Midlands, South-West, South-East & South Coast, East Anglia, Scotland, Wales). Powers could be devolved to special-purpose bodies which are formed of representatives from across the region, similar to how Transport for the North works now. In time leaders could even be directly elected, similar to PCCs.

The "oddball" services could be part of Intercity but with a different sub-brand ("Regional Express", or even CrossCountry would work well). Overall, I would propose two sub-brands of Intercity to denote different service types, all operated using the same crew:

Intercity
Most LNER, Avanti + GWR/XC/EMR long-distance services
Reservations required, first class and buffet car etc.

CrossCountry:
Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead + a few others I've probably missed.
Reservations not required, trolley catering, small first class section.

You could also argue whether some of the long-distance TfW routes to Manchester/Birmingham should be "CrossCountry", with TfW operating services within Wales.

Everything else would be delivered by the 7x regions, who could also introduce their own "express" brands for some services if they wish (eg, for the faster TPE routes in the North regional)

 

[Electrostar387]

I agree but the devolution would have to be well thought-out. Most routes don't fit neatly into city regions, so devolving powers to the mayors is difficult. I think it would be better to have ~7 regions (North, Midlands, South-West, South-East & South Coast, East Anglia, Scotland, Wales). Powers could be devolved to special-purpose bodies which are formed of representatives from across the region, similar to how Transport for the North works now. In time leaders could even be directly elected, similar to PCCs.

The "oddball" services could be part of Intercity but with a different sub-brand ("Regional Express", or even CrossCountry would work well). Overall, I would propose two sub-brands of Intercity to denote different service types, all operated using the same crew:

Intercity
Most LNER, Avanti + GWR/XC long-distance services
Reservations required, first class and buffet car etc.

CrossCountry:
Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead + a few others I've probably missed.
Reservations not required, trolley catering, small first class section.

You could also argue whether some of the long-distance TfW routes to Manchester/Birmingham should be "CrossCountry", with TfW operating services within Wales.

Everything else would be delivered by the 7x regions, who could also introduce their own "express" brands for some services if they wish (eg, for the faster TPE routes in the North regional)

This would get my vote, as a frequent rail user but also rail staff this would be an easy to remember, logical way of explaining services to people if questioned!

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

You could also argue whether some of the long-distance TfW routes to Manchester/Birmingham should be "CrossCountry", with TfW operating services within Wales

I think that sounds like a good idea, but you may need to truncate some services, because I doubt that there would be much interest among intercity directors in terms of operating services to West Wales rural lines. I would personally recommend truncating services to Manchester to terminate at Swansea at the furthest, with maybe some replacement TfW services terminating at Cardiff or Newport.
Even then, there would still be some services that TfW would operate within England, such as North Wales to South Wales services, given the Welsh Government would want to operate those given they are mainly intended for Welsh people in a world where Welsh nationalist sentiment seems to be growing, and if welsh labour cant turn things around, they might end of losing to Plaid Cymru in 2026 who would show a clear interest in welsh services for welsh people.

 

[AndrewE]

I agree but the devolution would have to be well thought-out. Most routes don't fit neatly into city regions, so devolving powers to the mayors is difficult. I think it would be better to have ~7 regions (North, Midlands, South-West, South-East & South Coast, East Anglia, Scotland, Wales). Powers could be devolved to special-purpose bodies which are formed of representatives from across the region, similar to how Transport for the North works now. In time leaders could even be directly elected, similar to PCCs.

The "oddball" services could be part of Intercity but with a different sub-brand ("Regional Express", or even CrossCountry would work well). Overall, I would propose two sub-brands of Intercity to denote different service types, all operated using the same crew:

Intercity
Most LNER, Avanti + GWR/XC/EMR long-distance services
Reservations required, first class and buffet car etc.

CrossCountry:
Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead + a few others I've probably missed.
Reservations not required, trolley catering, small first class section.

You could also argue whether some of the long-distance TfW routes to Manchester/Birmingham should be "CrossCountry", with TfW operating services within Wales.

Everything else would be delivered by the 7x regions, who could also introduce their own "express" brands for some services if they wish (eg, for the faster TPE routes in the North regional)

I would not agree, mainly because you are mainly perpetuating the "serving London" and "not serving London" split. You have only "promoted" XC's NE-SW route and we know how "serving London"/"not serving London" turns out for electrification, rolling stock provision etc.

Also all your cross-country service pairs are between cities, many of them serving lots more important cities en route than the London starters, so I think we should be looking for a limited stop "Class 1" network regardless of whether a train goes to London, then a set of inter-regional semi-fast trains, with stoppers/locals "beneath" them where justified - Which is probably more widespread than now, but that's OT.
It may be that you can't really justify the class 1 trains in the remoter parts of the country, but I woud like to see the TPE Glasgow-Manchesters extended, perhaps to Leeds or Sheffield and maybe some stops taken out of the the Liverpool - Norwich trains. Why do teh Stanstead to Brum trains call at Coleshill parkway? It's not even as though it feeds into a distributor stopping local service.

 

[JonathanH]

Why do teh Stanstead to Brum trains call at Coleshill parkway?

If they didn't, Coleshill Parkway would only have an hourly service. It isn't always possible to justify running separate local and regional services. What other service would stop at Coleshill Parkway if the Stansted train didn't. This point is replicated in numerous places on the network.

 

[Manutd1999]

I would not agree, mainly because you are mainly perpetuating the "serving London" and "not serving London" split. You have only "promoted" XC's NE-SW route and we know how "serving London"/"not serving London" turns out for electrification, rolling stock provision etc.

It's not ideological, just reflecting reality of the current operating pattern.

Manchester-Glasgow could be a good candidate for Intercity if it was separated from the North region. Likewise the slower services from London (LNER stoppers to Lincoln/York, LNW to Birmingham/Crewe etc) could be "Crosscountry", depending on how that impacts rolling stock utilisation.

 

[AndrewE]

It's not ideological, just reflecting reality of the current operating pattern.

...which is ideological. It reflects the Westminster-focussed governments we have had for decades now, and is widely thought to be inhibiting economic activity in the provinces. (Don't forget the hastily-dumped "Levelling up" initiative, which achieved nothing either.)

Manchester-Glasgow could be a good candidate for Intercity if it was separated from the North region. Likewise the slower services from London (LNER stoppers to Lincoln/York, LNW to Birmingham/Crewe etc) could be "Crosscountry", depending on how that impacts rolling stock utilisation.

I thought a natural extension of the thread title would be "... and what effect would that have on rolling stock procurement?"
If we look for a sound train service /network structure built on the needs of the whole country there will be implications for what investment is needed, rather than provincial services just getting ex-London service hand-me-downs. I'm not against cascading stock (say class 1 to our new class 2 interregional expresses, e.g. Mk4s to TfW's Cardiff and Holyhead to Manchester semi-fasts) but a time will come when new trains are needed for something like NPR (and indeed NE-SW now!) Rolling stock availability shouldn't govern what service level is provided away from London.

 

[Transilien]

London (LNER stoppers to Lincoln/York, LNW to Birmingham/Crewe etc)

I wouldn’t say those services should belong in the same category. The LNW services to Birmingham and Crewe are more similar to stopping services to Peterborough (which is almost 100 miles away from London) The LNER services to Lincoln and York are more Intercity services as they go up to 125mph and don’t really provide a local service like the LNW services do with them stopping at small towns like Atherstone that don’t have any regional importance.

 

[AndrewE]

I wouldn’t say those services should belong in the same category. The LNW services to Birmingham and Crewe are more similar to stopping services to Peterborough (which is almost 100 miles away from London) The LNER services to Lincoln and York are more Intercity services as they go up to 125mph and don’t really provide a local service like the LNW services do with them stopping at small towns like Atherstone that don’t have any regional importance.

yes, the LNR services [from London] to Brum and Crewe are the tier 2 semi-fasts.
If you can think about services which aren't primarily serving London then the LNR Birmingham to (Crewe and) Liverpool services are the ones which a) are inter-city, b) do 110 mph but could do more, and c) should be limited stop, which makes them like your LNER services to Lincoln and York. I guess London to Liverpool and Manc are vaguely similar, but as they serve much bigger cities and conurbations a much faster/more frequent/ morelimited stop service is justifed. (Edit - just that Lpool misses out at the moment.)
The tier 2 LNR services from London to Brum and Crewe should also be matched by fast trains between Brum and (at least) Preston to relieve the Brum - Scotland trains.

 

[JLH4AC]

I can't help but wonder if the premise of the question is wrong. Rather than asking "what should be considered Intercity under GBR" I think we are much more likely to be considering, 'after local devolution, is everything left over Intercity?"

If local mayors are to get the kind of commissioning powers that have been implied, then I can see us easily ending up with a system similar to that in Germany, national operator responsible for infrastructure, network timetable planning and intercity services, with local services controlled by local government.

On that basis I would not be surprised to find that the national operator ends up 'lumbered' with some cross region services purely as a result of structural issues. Are they part of an intercity business unit? If not are you proposing to create a business unit to operate a handful of oddball routes?

The question would still be "what services should be considered Intercity under GBR", there many sub-questions such as would the English GBR long distance express trains that effectively operate within a single region such as Greater Western and Greater Anglia trains be considered Intercity or would they be considered something like Regional Express because they are ideally would be commissioned by the sub-national/regional transport body, would current Intercity train operating with a single region be downgraded to regional services or axed, and would the Intercity trains that the regional TOCs currently operate be axed.

I agree but the devolution would have to be well thought-out. Most routes don't fit neatly into city regions, so devolving powers to the mayors is difficult. I think it would be better to have ~7 regions (North, Midlands, South-West, South-East & South Coast, East Anglia, Scotland, Wales). Powers could be devolved to special-purpose bodies which are formed of representatives from across the region, similar to how Transport for the North works now. In time leaders could even be directly elected, similar to PCCs.

West Midlands Rail Executive and Transport for Greater Manchester already have their own devolution deals with GBRTT. GBRTT was meant to intensify negotiations with Transport for the East Midlands and Transport for the North and a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with Liverpool City Region Combined Authority to develop proposals for the Merseyrail network. This would suggest that GBR will involve transport bodies at all levels of government in the commissioning process.

I am not sure that there is any actual benefit to them to be directly elected and given the continuing poor turnout at PPC elections I doubt there is much political will for such a elected position, continuing to have the chair of Transport Bodies be selected by the Councils involved is likely the best way forward.

 

[Manutd1999]

I wouldn’t say those services should belong in the same category. The LNW services to Birmingham and Crewe are more similar to stopping services to Peterborough (which is almost 100 miles away from London) The LNER services to Lincoln and York are more Intercity services as they go up to 125mph and don’t really provide a local service like the LNW services do with them stopping at small towns like Atherstone that don’t have any regional importance.

That's a fair point. Updated list:

Intercity: LNER, Avanti, long-distance EMR/GWR/XC, Manchester-Scotland, Liverpool-Glasgow

The majority of these could be operated by Class 80x and Pendalino's, subject to ordering some new units for the XC routes.

CrossCountry
Liverpool-Norwich, LNW London-Crewe and London-Birmingham, Chiltern services to Birmingham, TfW to Manchester/Birmingham, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead, Birmingham-Liverpool, Waterloo-Exeter/Salisbury/Poole/Weymouth, Newcastle-Edinburgh

A wide variety of rolling-stock would be required but hopefully this would be standardised to some extent over time (eg, introducing a small first class section on all trains)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Intercity
Most LNER, Avanti + GWR/XC/EMR long-distance services
Reservations required, first class and buffet car etc.

CrossCountry:
Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead + a few others I've probably missed.
Reservations not required, trolley catering, small first class section.

I don't think reservations should be required on any service (except for a sleeper berth - and even those trains would ideally have one or two unreserved seating coaches attached for walk-up passengers). Reservations available, certainly, and reservations recommended where necessary; but never required. A decent proportion of the seating on any service should always be unreservable; like coach U on an 11-car Pendolino. I'm also not sure of the need for first class on the routes you have dubbed 'CrossCountry'.

I thought a natural extension of the thread title would be "... and what effect would that have on rolling stock procurement?"
If we look for a sound train service /network structure built on the needs of the whole country there will be implications for what investment is needed, rather than provincial services just getting ex-London service hand-me-downs. I'm not against cascading stock (say class 1 to our new class 2 interregional expresses, e.g. Mk4s to TfW's Cardiff and Holyhead to Manchester semi-fasts) but a time will come when new trains are needed for something like NPR (and indeed NE-SW now!) Rolling stock availability shouldn't govern what service level is provided away from London.

Despite the periodic dire warnings from senior Government figures and the United Nations secretary general over the urgency of tackling the climate crisis, actual policy on the ground seems very laidback and relatively slow. While UK Rail is a tiny segment on the overall pie chart of greenhouse gas emissions, it would still be better if everything was 'pulling in the same direction'. That means cascades, procurement of new stock and roll-out of electrification needs to be planned in a holistic manner. Unfortunately, now is not the time for brand new trains for the Plymouth-Edinburgh corridor, because that would almost certainly result in unacceptable delays to electrification (because, if that had it's own bi-modes, there wouldn't be anywhere sensible to cascade the bi-modes from (for example) PAD-Bristol and PAD-Oxford services, so the case for electrification would be weakened).

That's a fair point. Updated list:

Intercity: LNER, Avanti, long-distance EMR/GWR/XC, Manchester-Scotland, Liverpool-Glasgow

The majority of these could be operated by Class 80x and Pendalino's, subject to ordering some new units for the XC routes.

As above, please no more new 125mph+ bi-modes.

CrossCountry
Liverpool-Norwich, LNW London-Crewe and London-Birmingham, Chiltern services to Birmingham, TfW to Manchester/Birmingham, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Birmingham-Stanstead, Birmingham-Liverpool

A wide variety of rolling-stock would be required but hopefully this would be standardised to some extent over time (eg, introducing a small first class section on all trains)

Most of these however would benefit from the procurement of new bi-mode stock (100/110mph not 125, ideally suitable to run at SP differential linespeeds) and, as above, I'm not sure first class is really needed. I know I've been on about a new-build bi-mode version of a 5WES for years, but that really is the sort of thing I think is needed. Some services that are not on your list (eg. Waterloo-Exeter) would also benefit from this.

 

[dk1]

Why are so many of you spelling Stansted as Stanstead? It only has one ‘A’ in the name.

You can have trolleys with high density stock, like the ex stanstead flirts that Greater Anglia use on Norwich services

Do you mean Stansted Ex rather than Ex Stansted?

Norwich trains have a trolley on all services and a cafe bar also on those operated with a 745/0 everyday except on those Sundays when catering is available.

~115 journeys per day are made between Norwich / Ely / Peterborough and Sheffield / Manchester / Liverpool, although I don't know how many of those are via London (or Doncaster), and that isn't a massive amount; slightly fewer journeys than between Truro and Paddington.

Yes it’s also been mentioned before how many journeys actually cross Nottingham daily as defence to splitting the route. It was far more than many expected.

 

[renegademaster]

you mean Stansted Ex rather than Ex Stansted?

Ex Standsted Ex

 

[dk1]

Ex Standsted Ex

Those flirts are still used on the Stansted Express.