Idea - Merging brands of Intercity TOCs together

[Clansman]

Just a thought, would it not make sense for Intercity TOCs to brand under the same name? Keeping the franchises as they are, would it bot be more convenient from a passenger and operatorational point of view to merge the brands of EC/WC/TP/XC franchises together, in a similar circumstance to Thameslink. Obviously there are pros and cons in everything but in this instance how could it fair?

Just to clarify, the franchises would stay the same, but each sector (WC/EC etc) would be subordinates of one brand, thus share the same website, liveries etc, but operated by different operators within their respective sectors. Would be easier for all parties in my opinion (if done right, of course). Fleets of trains would be more flexible, sectors (ie TOCs) could work together (in some instances) to coordinate a better service whilst still having control of their respective franchise.

Just an idea

 

[Domh245]

Fleets of trains would be more flexible

I didn't know that paint/vinyl would let you overcome coupling/electrical issues, and stock and route knowledge so easily!

 

[Master29]

Not really sure comparing anything to Thameslink at the moment sounds like a good idea but it does make some sense at the end of the day.

 

[Clansman]

I didn't know that paint/vinyl would let you overcome coupling/electrical issues, and stock and route knowledge so easily!

Obviously in the current state TOCs are in its more of an idea for the future, when fleets are less complex and more compatible (IEPs for example). It would definitly not work in the current state that these TOCs are in.

Im comparing Thameslink because of the mass order of the 700s and newer electrostars, thus the fleet as a whole becomes more flexible on all parts of Thameslink such as GN and Southern - as opposed to 319s over here, 456s over here and a drop of 442s and electrostars elsewhere etc. Obviously a common pool of trains is easier to work with, hence why we are seeing fleets in the future for the majority of TOCs becoming less varied and easier to work with.

 

[SaveECRewards]

Look at Virgin Trains as an example why this is a bad idea. People won't know who to contact for customer relations, people will assume it is all one company and a bad experience on one will rub off on the others.

I use Virgin as an example as VTEC and VTWC are separate companies but they mostly share the Virgin Trains brand - people assume 'Virgin Trains' (west coast twitter and website) is the contact point for both franchises.

 

[grumblingalong]

Had it been done at the point of privatisation (I.e. Privatise the sectors as franchises) yes, now, it would be too messy.

 

[Surreytraveller]

There already is one brand - National Rail. Nobody uses it except London Underground for their 'way out' signs. Presumably the ex Intercity franchises could still use the brand name 'Intercity' if they wanted to?

 

[HH]

InterCity is a BR brand that is now owned by DfT.

 

[physics34]

ive always been keen of one livery/branding with the particular TOC being a sub brand.

We all know that the majority of people just know a train as a train, and they have no clue/ want to know who is running the service, they just want a train!

One website would also be a great idea.

Privatisation was meant to create competition in which case separate brandings would be important, but its been realised that this hasnt quite worked out over the year, and all the passengers want is a reliable cheap train service that gets them from A to B.

 

[pdeaves]

InterCity is a BR brand that is now owned by DfT.

It was used (briefly) by the early Great Western Trains franchise (they used the tag 'providing INTERCITY services', or similar) but no other ex-IC TOCs used it, so it became a bit pointless and was dropped.

 

[mark-h]

I think it would only work if there was centralised control with the private companies operating the services to an agreed specification.I think it would only work if there was centralised control with the private companies operating the services to an agreed specification.

This would be similar to the way TFL outsource some of their operation (buses, DLR, rail services) but keep control of the brand identity, fares services etc.

This would effectively result in a nationalised Intercity (BR) which outsources all of its operation to private companies.

Having multiple companies operating under the same identity without central control would be confusing to customers (as is currently the case with the two Virgins).

 

[tbtc]

Obviously a common pool of trains is easier to work with, hence why we are seeing fleets in the future for the majority of TOCs becoming less varied and easier to work with

I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve here.

One website for all InterCity services? Other than NRE, which already provides information on them all?

Not London to Norwich or London to Gatwick Airport (which previously had InterCity)? But does include London to Corby?

Common fleets? Well, we are moving towards that anyway with 800/801/802s. But you are including the 125mph tilting electric services of VTWC and the slower diesel services of XC and TPE (Cleethorpes, Stansted etc).

Common standards? TOCs would "still have control of their respective franchises" whilst using the one website/ livery/ fleet? Would you insist on common standards of First Class/ food/ literature?

Is London - Hull an "InterCity" service or do Open Access not qualify?

There's obviously an argument about the balance between the freedom of individual TOCs versus common standards (e.g. under this new regime, you'd presumably not see one TOC giving Nectar points whilst others don't).

However, this feels a bit too binary. At the moment there are various levels of "InterCity" - depending on the prestige of the service. You could argue that the Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes service gets the level of quality that it deserves. Should it be brought up to the same standard as London to Edinburgh, because both as seen as "InterCity" in the OP's eyes? I don't buy the "one size fits all" view of InterCity.

Fair enough if a TOC with different levels of service want to distinguish certain trains (e.g. EMT's London to Leicester services, FGW's London to Swindon services) as being "InterCity", but I don't think that prescribing one livery/ one website etc would help.

Rather than worrying about BR's binary sectors, I'd be more interested in how we can improve co-ordination between existing TOCs. For example, VTEC run some peak extras during the week. Whilst some trains will need maintenance at the weekend, is there scope to lend a Neville Hill HST every weekend to XC to run a round trip from Leeds to Devon/ Cornwall?

 

[coppercapped]

<SNIP>

Privatisation was meant to create competition....

No it wasn't.

It was intended to create competition for the franchise, not between the franchises.

 

[physics34]

No it wasn't.

It was intended to create competition for the franchise, not between the franchises.

it certainly was in the south....especially between london and gatwick (involving an intercity route)

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It was used (briefly) by the early Great Western Trains franchise (they used the tag 'providing INTERCITY services', or similar) but no other ex-IC TOCs used it, so it became a bit pointless and was dropped.

Yes, and the first Merlin-liveried carriages had 'Great Western' at one end, 'INTERCITY' at the other. (Pic.) Before long that was changed to be GW at both ends.

Other shadow TOCs used the "providing INTERCITY services" line - I remember CrossCountry doing so on their printed timetables, for example. GWT was the only one I remember carrying it through post-privatisation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT doesn't like blurring the boundaries between franchises, even if there are obvious tactical advantages in merging them.
The contracts are different and have different conditions and expiry dates.
The rolling stock is individually contracted from (usually) different owners and may have different terms and maintenance regimes.
All costs have to be rigidly allocated between TOCs, no common "pool" to dip into or you lose control.
The best owning groups can do is to merge some back office functions, or outsource them to a common supplier.
First's acquisition of 802s for both GWR and TPE is one such benefit, also Virgin's marketing for VTWC and VTEC jointly.

 

[coppercapped]

it certainly was in the south....especially between london and gatwick (involving an intercity route)

The franchises were first let for train service groups which had previously been used by BR for its own internal accounting purposes. Gatwick Express had at one time been a sub-sector of InterCity and was franchised on that basis. The other southern franchises were essentially based on the areas of the pre-grouping companies which were also used as sub-sectors for BR's management accounting. That these franchises could compete with each other on the margins was an accident of railway geography and not an intent of the franchising process.