I agree, longer trains are definitely needed.
I think a gradual process on expanding platform lengths is probably the answer.
Have a requirement to extend them when refurbishment works are done.
Any new platforms being built to the target.
A bit like the electrification clearances on bridges perhaps?
(I know that caused some troubles though)
Also, possibly a more obvious form of selective door opening could be a stop gap to make it easier.
Paint the front two carriages bright blue and say "sit in blue carriages only" for stations with short platforms.
(the exact colour is not important).
Thus treating those carriages as a separate train, almost...
Some interesting ideas there - I especially like the idea of making extended platforms "the norm" (or at least ensuring the scope for them) when refurbishing a line - to make things much simpler when we do need to extend services.
Down South people cope with SDO and portion working without major issues. Are passengers in the North really less able to cope with such things?
If you have a twelve coach 377 on every journey then people will know which carriage to board etc (and know that they can walk between units).
Without getting too hung up on the "random unit generator" trope (which I think does get a little over-egged by some on here), the wide variety of units, and the large number of units without gangway connections round here mean that passengers oop north don't have the same security over where to stand at a platform, which carriage to board etc.
If TOCs had a nice uniform fleet then passengers would be able to cope better - us enthusiasts take things forgranted but train travel can be an anxious experience for a lot of people - instead we are getting three types of stock on the Leeds - Manchester line (185s, 802s and loco hauled) to replace one type of stock (185), we have Northern ordering new DMUs without corridor connections, we have a messy combination of trains (many of which won't work together).
There's also the issue that portion working is fine on a regular/simple "metro" network (which much of the old Southern Region is). It'd be an unreliable mess if you tried to introduce it on the messy combination of hourly train services that we have in northern England though.
The only time I've regularly seen people left on the platform is on Saturdays on the Preston - Manchester line when the Manchester Christmas Markets are on and you don't base your rolling stock strategy on what happens on 8 days of the year
Agreed - although there are a lot on here who expect the railway to be flexible enough to cope with every event that takes place (e.g. the thread about a Spice Girls concert a couple of months ago) and who think that the railway should have sufficient spare capacity to easily cope with the absolute busiest day of the year.
As for TPE, I'd prefer to see 4 8-car services per hour between Manchester and Leeds to 5 5 or 6-car ones.
Again, I agree with you, but there'd be arguments from those who currently have a direct service - people in northern England seem hung up on direct trains, so there'll be a toys/pram situation if Newcastle lost its hourly train to one of Liverpool/ Manchester Airport, or similar gnashing of teeth if Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough didn't have their hourly transpennine service.
A simple reliable transpennine timetable with longer trains would be much more use than what we currently have, it's just that you may have a lot of upset from people that they've lost their direct train to somewhere a hundred miles away that was useful for a once-a-year journey!
I agree on the car lengths ( if not the 2 car stuff) but you are wasting your breath. Posters who live in the north ( and haven't lived elsewhere - and I used to be one of them) feel trains there are the busiest in the country. They aren't. The kind of capacity they think is needed would be wasted. I do wish they often experienced a 12 car train packed to the gunwales as I do most mornings into London. It would open their eyes. They really have no idea what busy actually is!
@DarloRich speaks the truth - I'm amazed at what some people in northern England will claim to be "overcrowded" (which might just mean "I had to sit next to a stranger and didn't get a double seat to myself" or "there was one bloke who chose to stand on a carriage with 75% of seats taken")... but spending time around London shows a network where people are accustomed to not always being able to physically fit on the first train to arrive. Whole different world down there.
Some lines in northern England are at capacity (the Airedale line being high up that list), but in many other cases busy services can still be extended with more carriages (unlike trains around London that are already over two hundred metres long).
Heresy. Continue as you are and do not address the choice of either an expensive conversion to light rail or (gulp) closure.
It may be heresy to some, but there are plenty of lines around here where rail is never going to be busy enough - we are stuck with various "Parliamentary" services and other quiet branches where heavy rail is too inflexible or the population density is too low. I've mentioned before that the Colne branch has an average passenger loading east of Burnley that could be accommodated by a minibus - but replacing all of the 142/144/153s in the Northern franchise means that the shortest trains round here will still be able to accommodate around a hundred and fifty people.
Look at how Light Rail is significantly more popular through Oldham than Heavy Rail was (because Light Rail has been able to properly serve central Oldham and central Rochdale, rather than dumping passengers on the edge of town because that was as close as the Victorians bothered to get).
