Your views: should we have first class on trains at all?

[yorksrob]

I can remember at one stage, the VEP's on the Ashford - Victoria stopper had a 1st class compartment declassified in each driving trailer. There was obviously substantial demand for first class travel on those routes, because the compartments were soon re-classified again (much to my dismay).

 

[The Ham]

I can remember at one stage, the VEP's on the Ashford - Victoria stopper had a 1st class compartment declassified in each driving trailer. There was obviously substantial demand for first class travel on those routes, because the compartments were soon re-classified again (much to my dismay).

There were compartments on the SWR fleet (not sure which units, and assume they dated from BR's day) which were standard class, I didn't pay enough attention to see if they were the same as first class but they were in the same area.


I don't recall but I assume they, however, remained until replacement.


What I do know is that there's people who are willing to pay for first class from my local station (even though they can be sure of a seat in the morning) and could reduce their ticket price (and still be sure of a seat out of London) of they had a standard class ticket for the journey from about 15 minutes up the line.

To travel first chass (assuming an annual session ticket) they pay 70% more, yet their seating is probably at best only 50% less dense (width wise they are 25-35% less packed in depending on if it's 2+1 or 2+2). As such chances are first class passengers are ending up getting the TOC more money than if they weren't there.

On a full service the extra few seats that people could use (assuming no first class) probably isn't going to make much difference to if people get a seat or not and so probably isn't going to earn the TOC enough to justify removing it unless every train is rammed with a most people standing (which very few are beyond the few that form the 60-90 minutes of the very high peak and even then few will be for more than 30 minutes of train travel for the passengers before they get off or can sit down).

There's always going to be a few exceptions (where first class exists) which meet all those requirements. In those cases I could see that removing first class would be a good thing (like they do in the Thameslink core).

 

[yorksrob]

There were compartments on the SWR fleet (not sure which units, and assume they dated from BR's day) which were standard class, I didn't pay enough attention to see if they were the same as first class but they were in the same area.


I don't recall but I assume they, however, remained until replacement.

Yes, all the longer distance slammers included a standard class compartment alongside the 1st class ones, certainly for the 25 years or so I used them. In the case I mentioned, a real 1st class compartment had been declassified and retained all the 1st class furnishings !

 

[AlterEgo]

I will generally only travel in first class when going long distances. Most of my long distance travel is discretionary - that is, its my choice to do it - and usually booked well in advance.

Having a window seat which is also an aisle seat is a real bonus. Plus, I find it more comfortable, and generally quieter and there’s a lower risk of the carriage being a zoo like it can be in Standard. On some routes there’s food available which helps to pass rhe time and sometimes saves money on eating a meal out.

 

[cjp]

Having reread the original post I wonder if the original post was prompted by jealousy or egalitarianism. In either event TOC make their decisions on basis of money or politics. The money side is straightforward isn't it? If it was not profitable a company would not offer it. Politically it is less clear. Even "real politics" is frequently driven by money or pressure, hyperbole or selective facts. I am not going to give examples as I am sure you can think of your own and it will only ďerail the thread but the baying minority can overwhelm the silent majority. Always has been and always will be. It is still a way of getting change and change can be good or bad. Just always be prepared to question the real reason for the change or lack of change.
People on here have expressed views but we have no horse in the race, can make no decision, we can simply vote with our feet, or disposable income.
For now it seems most posters would keep it but the number of members bothering to comment indicate the politics of the majority remains indifference.

OK next thread please

 

[greyman42]

Having reread the original post I wonder if the original post was prompted by jealousy or egalitarianism. In either event TOC make their decisions on basis of money or politics. The money side is straightforward isn't it? If it was not profitable a company would not offer it. Politically it is less clear. Even "real politics" is frequently driven by money or pressure, hyperbole or selective facts. I am not going to give examples as I am sure you can think of your own and it will only ďerail the thread but the baying minority can overwhelm the silent majority. Always has been and always will be. It is still a way of getting change and change can be good or bad. Just always be prepared to question the real reason for the change or lack of change.
People on here have expressed views but we have no horse in the race, can make no decision, we can simply vote with our feet, or disposable income.
For now it seems most posters would keep it but the number of members bothering to comment indicate the politics of the majority remains indifference.

OK next thread please

Jealousy in my opinion.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Having reread the original post I wonder if the original post was prompted by jealousy or egalitarianism. In either event TOC make their decisions on basis of money or politics. The money side is straightforward isn't it? If it was not profitable a company would not offer it. Politically it is less clear. Even "real politics" is frequently driven by money or pressure, hyperbole or selective facts. I am not going to give examples as I am sure you can think of your own and it will only ďerail the thread but the baying minority can overwhelm the silent majority. Always has been and always will be. It is still a way of getting change and change can be good or bad. Just always be prepared to question the real reason for the change or lack of change.
People on here have expressed views but we have no horse in the race, can make no decision, we can simply vote with our feet, or disposable income.
For now it seems most posters would keep it but the number of members bothering to comment indicate the politics of the majority remains indifference.

OK next thread please

So glad you share my opinion. Bitterness, if you ask me Others shouldn’t really have to miss out.

 

[DarloRich]

Having reread the original post I wonder if the original post was prompted by jealousy or egalitarianism. In either event TOC make their decisions on basis of money or politics. The money side is straightforward isn't it? If it was not profitable a company would not offer it. Politically it is less clear. Even "real politics" is frequently driven by money or pressure, hyperbole or selective facts. I am not going to give examples as I am sure you can think of your own and it will only ďerail the thread but the baying minority can overwhelm the silent majority. Always has been and always will be. It is still a way of getting change and change can be good or bad. Just always be prepared to question the real reason for the change or lack of change.
People on here have expressed views but we have no horse in the race, can make no decision, we can simply vote with our feet, or disposable income.
For now it seems most posters would keep it but the number of members bothering to comment indicate the politics of the majority remains indifference.

OK next thread please

is there a point to this windbaggery? Do you have a view?

Jealousy in my opinion.

You are, of course, entitled to express that opinion. It is wrong but you are welcome to express it. Of what would I be jealous? If access to cheap first class travel is what you ( and others) judge their worth as men by then I am happy to be without it. I have better things to judge my worth by.

So glad you share my opinion. Bitterness, if you ask me Others shouldn’t really have to miss out.

One day, perhaps soon, the real world will burst into your comfortable little bubble. You might understand then.

 

[cf111]

First is nice, on occasion, when it's cheap. I certainly couldn't afford to do it for every journey or at some of the fares offered. Most standard class accommodation is perfectly fine and as long as I can get a seat of some description I'm quite content. On the sleeper I do travel in first because I don't want to share, but those journeys are few and far between and often more of a "treat" where I am willing to spend the cash.

I'm not often on the West Coast Mainline but it does strike me that there is over-provision of 1st on the 390s, that said perhaps the demand is there on some flows (Birmingham-London in the morning and evenings?) but not obvious to someone like me who would generally travel on that line during quieter hours and not in the peak.

Things will change in Scotland soon with the introduction of the HSTs, I don't know what the 1st class offer will be but we will be going from 18 1st seats (I think!) on the 170s to a half-carriage on the refurbished Mk. 3s.

On the whole I don't know if I would get rid of first class completely, but I feel the priority needs to be carrying as many people at affordable fares as possible and that means more standard class but in decent accommodation so that people actually want to travel by train, certainly on long-distance journeys where they have a choice.

 

[Failed Unit]

It is. At the end of the day if you complain about capacity, upgrade and you’ll get a seat. If you can’t afford it, stand.

Virgin trains west coast didn’t take that view. They converted a first class coach to standard as they realised they had over provisioned first.

 

[Failed Unit]

Ah. I am certainly skinny but quite tall as well. That’s probably why I dislike IC70 seats. Too short. Yet ironically I think IC Grammar seats are even worse.

But to be fair - people who have a problem can upgrade. And if they cannot afford to upgrade then they shouldn’t be pernickety because there is no other option!

I took the advice on this post and upgraded on a trip to Cambridge. A class 700 showed up. Do you think I could get a refund as it had lots of spare seats in standard and GTR seem to have forgotten to provide and difference in seats.

 

[whhistle]

The problem is linked to whether there should be certain provisions to call a section First Class.

On Virgin West Coast, First Class is very different to standard.
On East Midlands Trains (London route), not so much.
Yet both are considered "Intercity".

Would it be better having Standard only? Perhaps.
I increasingly see people buying First Class tickets to "guarantee them a seat" - that is becoming the main draw, certainly if you use London Midland West Midlands Railway London North Western services, or Cross Country's Nottingham to Cardiff trains.

For longer distance INTERCITY services, keep the First Class because if you can plan from London to Edinburgh and get a cheap ticket, that's great. But it must be value for money, and thus, I still believe a set of minimum national standards (bigger seats, free food/drinks all day, nicer surroundings - curtains/lamps et al) should be set in place.
There is still scope to have differences so each TOC can put their mark on it.

 

[tbtc]

Any chance this can be made into a "sticky" or "master thread", since it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly?

I personally don't mind First Class in theory though I very very rarely use it - but if someone wants to spend an extra £20 for a cup of coffee, a little shortbread and an antimacassar then good luck to them - each to their own - my problem is more with the over-provision of First Class on some services/lines, where people are standing in Standard yet the majority of First Class seats are empty.

As long as First Class is relatively busy (compared to density of passengers in Standard) then I've no problem.

Having reread the original post I wonder if the original post was prompted by jealousy or egalitarianism. In either event TOC make their decisions on basis of money or politics. The money side is straightforward isn't it? If it was not profitable a company would not offer it. Politically it is less clear. Even "real politics" is frequently driven by money or pressure, hyperbole or selective facts. I am not going to give examples as I am sure you can think of your own and it will only ďerail the thread but the baying minority can overwhelm the silent majority. Always has been and always will be. It is still a way of getting change and change can be good or bad. Just always be prepared to question the real reason for the change or lack of change

Genuine question - is First Class required as part of franchises? Is the decision to offer it completely up to the commercially minded TOC or do the Government stipulate a certain level of First Class in tenders? (I don't know the answer)

 

[47434]

I will generally travel first on long distances as I want to achieve some work on my pc. On commuter trains I don't see the need especially when the standard is crammed like a sardine can

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still believe a set of minimum national standards (bigger seats, free food/drinks all day, nicer surroundings - curtains/lamps et al) should be set in place.

I think I would set it as something quite simple like:
- There must be one fewer seat across the width of the train than in the majority of Standard. So in a 3+2 unit 2+2 1st, in a 2+2 unit 2+1 1st. Things like the 350/1 and what SWR are doing are a sham.
- The majority of seats must have no less average legroom (cushion to seat back at seat base level, or in table seats cushion to centre of table) than in the majority of Standard

That would do the job.

 

[Polarbear]

I think that Darlorich raises an interesting point.

Personally, I think that there's certainly a market for some form of differentiation between accommodations, which would benefit both the customer in terms of providing an enhanced/reduced service as befits their needs, and the train operator who could maximise revenue off the back of it.

As things stand currently, abolishing 1st class completely across the network would be a no-no in my opinion. To mitigate the loss of revenue from the current 1st class offering, you would have to upgrade the current level of standard class accommodation to a level that would attract at least some of the erstwhile 1st class customers. I'm thinking better layouts, with more tables with power points for charging laptops/mobiles (yes, it is happening, but slowly).

Unfortunately, the capacity to make the whole network a one class system just doesn't exist - and it's not just a matter of putting new seats into 1st class vehicles either.

Also, I look to other rail networks around the world, & whilst many aren't directly comparable to the UK network, I see very few that don't offer any form of class system, allowing customers to pay extra for more space etc. The Austrian system seems to be similar, in that 1st class is generally only offered on Inter City & long distance services, with most (all?) regional and urban operations being one class (and a pretty good one too).

There's a couple of other threads open currently, discussing the virtues, (or otherwise) of 1st class travel - unfortunately I don't have the ability to reply to all of them at present due to restricted internet access (long story). In my book though, there would be little to stop an operator introducing a two tier standard class service, where customers could pay extra for an enhanced service (say guaranteed seats/additional legroom/light catering) but provide the same standard of accommodation throughout the train. I'm thinking "Silver Standard" (for those who can remember that far back) and the Open Access operation on the east coast as a possible case in point?

 

[All Line Rover]

Virgin trains west coast didn’t take that view. They converted a first class coach to standard as they realised they had over provisioned first.

They converted it as part of the agreement for an extension of their franchise, on trains the DfT had previously refused to lengthen. They did not convert it "willingly", and I doubt they would ever have decided to do so purely on financial grounds.

 

[dcsprior]

I think that first class provision should be reduced and more space given to standard class passengers. Frankly I would like to see it removed on the majority of trains and the quality of standard class accommodation improved to compensate.

Undoubtedly many of you will disagree with me but I would like to hear why.

Here's what I wrote another time something similar came up

I disagree. Consider the Edinburgh-London journey (one I used to make very frequently by train): having two classes allows rail to compete with both of the main competitors - coaches/std (rail slightly dearer but a lot faster and similar comfort) and air/1st (rail similarly priced and slower, but a lot more comfortable and better freebies).

On commuter routes I'd agree that no-one should pay more for a better service when there are others who don't receive the basics, but the problem is that most 'commuter' services are also providing a longer distance service for some passengers.​

I would also like people to admit if they pay full price for their tickets, get a child or OAP fare or have access to a railcard. I think that price reduction plays a big part in the choices posters are able to make.

I don't have access to a railcard or, often, the luxury of being able to book well in advance or chose the time of my travel. That drives my choices and my views on first class.

​

When I've travelled first class, I've done so on Advances without railcard, purchased using my own money - except during the first year in my current job, when my employer paid my travel as I was on secondment (I'd always request standard class, but our travel office would sometimes pleasantly surprise me with a first class ticket)

My choices are also very much driven by price - as I wrote in the same post as above:

P.S. the reason I no longer travel EDB-KGX very frequently by rail is that in the early days of VTEC, they moved away from 1st in the train being prices in line with flying+transfers.​

In other words, basically:

In the absence of (long distance) First Class isn't there a danger of modal shift away from rail to air or motoring for some custom?

Which is not what we wish to see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These days I wouldn't say air was comparable with First Class, personally. More like Standard in price and comfort.

 

[STKKK46]

It is. At the end of the day if you complain about capacity, upgrade and you’ll get a seat. If you can’t afford it, stand.

Are you still on your one man mission to be controversial or are just trying to hack people off?

Ah. I am certainly skinny but quite tall as well. That’s probably why I dislike IC70 seats. Too short. Yet ironically I think IC Grammar seats are even worse.

But to be fair - people who have a problem can upgrade. And if they cannot afford to upgrade then they shouldn’t be pernickety because there is no other option!

Why should a train go with a half empty carriage of First Class and people standing where there would be room for them to sit if it was standard, just because they are less privileged than you. Also likely to be paying more for their ticket!!!

So glad you share my opinion. Bitterness, if you ask me Others shouldn’t really have to miss out.

Must you use words like bitterness? You are accusing people of being something that they are not, they are being realists.

This is a Railway forum where people are trying to have discussions. It is a forum. Just because people suggest something it doesn’t mean it will happen, so stop being so defensive, and at the same time, potentially insulting.


Anyway. If I have the choice I do prefer to travel First Class, however I don’t have that choice very often. I’d capacity constraints are going to keep getting tighter, then it may have to be looked at reducing First capacity. Either that or offer very cheap upgrades which just allow a seat and no more on busier services.

I know some people wouldn’t like to be surrounded by these less privileged people but there’s an idea.

 

[Failed Unit]

These days I wouldn't say air was comparable with First Class, personally. More like Standard in price and comfort.

I would agree with the ever decreasing seat pitch and the fact you don’t get anything included with the ticket price any more.

For the extra benefit you get on GTR services now. They should just abolish it. Even on Gatwick Express branded services.

 

[SwindonBert]

There should be 1st class on the intercity routes as some people prefer to pay that bit extra to get more comfort - especially for weekend 1st & advance fares

I'm planning to go to York from Cheltenham this summer travelling up on a Saturday - if it's reasonable, then I will pay the extra

As for commuter trains, e.g. most of the old Network SE routes (on the GWML, I would say the breakpoint is those trains starting at Reading) - the extra seating is probably more use than the option for 1st class, which will still be available on the trains from Swindon / Oxford

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are you still on your one man mission to be controversial or are just trying to hack people off?



Why should a train go with a half empty carriage of First Class and people standing where there would be room for them to sit if it was standard, just because they are less privileged than you. Also likely to be paying more for their ticket!!!



Must you use words like bitterness? You are accusing people of being something that they are not, they are being realists.

This is a Railway forum where people are trying to have discussions. It is a forum. Just because people suggest something it doesn’t mean it will happen, so stop being so defensive, and at the same time, potentially insulting.


Anyway. If I have the choice I do prefer to travel First Class, however I don’t have that choice very often. I’d capacity constraints are going to keep getting tighter, then it may have to be looked at reducing First capacity. Either that or offer very cheap upgrades which just allow a seat and no more on busier services.

I know some people wouldn’t like to be surrounded by these less privileged people but there’s an idea.

I’m sorry to cause offence I must admit - I did read that top quote back and wince a bit. Clearly I wasn’t thinking when posting that, sorry.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are you still on your one man mission to be controversial?

And definitely not by the way

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Virgin trains west coast didn’t take that view. They converted a first class coach to standard as they realised they had over provisioned first.

No, the DfT made them do it because they (DfT) refused to endorse the upgrading of the remaining 9-car sets to 11-car.
Converting a 1st class coach to standard brought the 9-car sets into a similar proportion of standard/1st as the 11-car.
All part of the "no new Pendolinos" unstated policy.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's been years since I've used non-declassified first class, I simply can't afford to pay the walk-up fares and as my health hasn't been great I've avoided advances as I can't rely on myself to turn up on time! When I have used first class in the past it has always been on advances.

First class on London commuter services is effectively "priority boarding" and should probably be branded as such. On longer distance routes it has a role, even if personally I'm ideologically uncomfortable with the concept. The issue is when a train has 1/4 or more given over to first class which is almost empty whilst people physically can't fit in standard. Back when Northern Spirit introduced 1st class on the 158s it was a disaster, and even when the new 185s arrived it didn't improve much. Ideally the introduction of first class on those routes should have been blocked until capacity was increased sufficiently. At least it's now worth the money if you can afford it!

 

[Failed Unit]

No, the DfT made them do it because they (DfT) refused to endorse the upgrading of the remaining 9-car sets to 11-car.
Converting a 1st class coach to standard brought the 9-car sets into a similar proportion of standard/1st as the 11-car.
All part of the "no new Pendolinos" unstated policy.

But surely considering the ratio was always wrong this was the right thing to do. I don’t travel on west coast as much as others but first was never as full as on the east.

 

[The Ham]

On SWR on the Desiro's there's about 10% of the seats are first class and about 15% of the coach space. As such you're probably looking at a few extra seats per unit, up to 1 extra doorway to stand in and a bit of extra corridor.

Given that they can be fairly well used when the trains are busy the extra amount of capacity that their removal would create wouldn't be noticeable.

As a case in point the 450's have 24 first class seats or of a total 264. That equates to 6 rows of 4. Even allowing for an extra row that would increase the total number of seats to 275 which is 4% (you gain nearly 2% by removing the guard's office).

On the new layouts the increase will be less again and so the risk removal would really not at all be noticeable and would likely only be justified on politically ground.

It would be better if all the effort put into discussing this was put to pushing for Crossrail 2 which on the lines where these trains run could see train frequenties (and therefore probably capacity) increase by upto 50%, which would be of much greater benefit to everyone who uses the services.

For instance it could, off peak provide an extra 264 seats compared to 22 seats by increasing a train service from 2tph to 3tph (all just 4 coaches long trains) rather than removing first class.

(It would also provide significant capacity on other lines and through central London).

Such a view is unlikely to be popular as it retains first class on commuter trains and is calling for more investment in London.

 

[amcluesent]

I remember a economist saying that to maintain First and Standard fare differentials on airlines, you had to provide superfluous features in First and deny the essentials in Standard. Same as the trains, really!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You know what? I travel first class when I go with Southern and SouthEastern and such because I like the privacy of the compartment and the higher chance of a seat.

However, I can understand why people think it a waste of valuable space. So if it was down to me I would retain first class on:

Abellio ScotRail
CrossCountry
East Midlands Trains
Gatwick Express
Grand Central
Greater Anglia -
(Stansted Ex. & Norwich IC only)
Heathrow Express
Hull Trains
South Western Railway
(Class 15x and 44x services only)
TransPennine Express
Virgin Trains
Virgin Trains East Coast

Only. But - there would have to be standards.


- 2x1 reclinable seating.

- Window curtains or blinds.

- Complementary drinks and refreshments offered on board.
(Whether these are just snacks, cold food or proper hot meals is at the TOCs discretion)

- Separated from standard class.