Should the NPR services have 1st Class?

[LOL The Irony]

For clarity I made that point about end doors, not about First Class which I definitely think should be provided.

Ok. I was taking your point about standardising with HS2 to it's logical conclusion, so if it has first class accommodation, why not get people to pay for it? It's just wasted otherwise.

 

[XAM2175]

... a bit like the Sheffield trams which have accessible, standee end sections for quick and easy access and short trips, but an effectively end doored, all seater middle section for longer trips.

You could even go as far as the SüWex FLIRT 3s do - the centre car has no doors at all.


(Richard Jones photo, via Flickr)

From personal experience it's a very decent 'compromise' layout for intermediate distance services - nice wide doors (for wheelchairs, bikes, prams, luggage, etc etc), and with reasonable amounts of standing space around them, but still room between the doors for large blocks of seating.

 

[py_megapixel]

It is a valid point that Intercity stock require carriages with saloons and vestibules with end doors, and first class, to run a decent long distance service.

I think it is valid to say that vestibules separate from the rest of the carriage are important, because if you have exterior doors in the passenger saloon, you get draughts and noise from the station and from the door alarms coming in at every station, and people queuing for toilets in the seating area.

But why do the doors need to be at the ends? I think there's a lot to be said for each coach having a large vestibule in the middle with a wide door, effectively splitting the passenger saloon in two and thus making longer carriages feel nicer. The wide doors are also better for accessibility and for boarding and alighting passengers quickly.

Of course this middle vestibule would still be separated from the seating with a wall and sliding doors, so the ambience would be exactly the same within the passenger saloon.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Of course this middle vestibule would still be separated from the seating with a wall and sliding doors, so the ambience would be exactly the same within the passenger saloon.

And defeat the purpose of having doors in the middle.

 

[py_megapixel]

And defeat the purpose of having doors in the middle.

No, the purpose of having the doors in the middle is that they can be wider and thus more convenient to use, and that the saloon is split into two so you feel less like you're staring down a dead straight tunnel (as you do on the IETs for example)

 

[Glenn1969]

I voted No but only because I don't think most journeys will be long enough for journey times to make it necessary

 

[LOL The Irony]

No, the purpose of having the doors in the middle is that they can be wider and thus more convenient to use, and that the saloon is split into two so you feel less like you're staring down a dead straight tunnel

I mean, you can put wide doors and vestibules on end door stock, it isn't impossible. Also the long tube thing can easily be solved by putting a partition between the seats in the middle of the coach.

But once again, putting a wall and sliding doors on middle door stock defeats the purpose of middle doors as it slows down loading times.

 

[py_megapixel]

I mean, you can put wide doors and vestibules on end door stock, it isn't impossible. Also the long tube thing can easily be solved by putting a partition between the seats in the middle of the coach.

All of that is fine, but my purpose was to challenge your assertion that the doors being positioned at the ends of the carriages is inherent to the quality of the service, which is clearly isn't, as all the advantages of end doors can be replicated in the middle as well.

I think you are only saying that end doors are necessary because the majority of intercity routes in this country are served by end-door stock, so in your mind that is how a long-distance train should look. Which is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, just not one I agree with.

But once again, putting a wall and sliding doors on middle door stock defeats the purpose of middle doors as it slows down loading times.

I'm not sure it's actually true that it entirely defeats the purpose, as with both sides of the vestibule leading into the seating area, the doors can be wider and there will probably be a roughly even number of people going in each direction - unlike, for example, a Voyager, where I generally see far more people turning towards the coach they have just boarded, rather than heading through the gangway to the next coach.

My instinct is therefore, that people will clear the vestibule more quickly in that case. This could be wrong though and it would be interesting to see if any actual research has been conducted into this.

 

[LOL The Irony]

All of that is fine, but my purpose was to challenge your assertion that the doors being positioned at the ends of the carriages is inherent to the quality of the service, which is clearly isn't, as all the advantages of end doors can be replicated in the middle as well.

I mean, I haven't said anything for or against end doors, only that putting walls by the vestibules on stock with doors at quarters or thirds defeats the purpose of doing so and you may as well use end door stock. I have nothing against middle door stock operating Intercity routes, Desiros being some of the best passenger trains in this country.

I think you are only saying that end doors are necessary because the majority of intercity routes in this country are served by end-door stock, so in your mind that is how a long-distance train should look. Which is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, just not one I agree with.

Ideally, Intercity stock should be end doored, but I have little problem with them having doors as quarters or thirds, if there is a reason for doing so. A reason putting walls and sliding doors in the vestibules defeats, which was my original point.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Apart from the awful window alignment in the mk5s and my personal dislike of Fainsa's finest, it is hard to say TPE doesn't have the best Standard Class accommodation in the country. I would hope any new NPR stock would continue that.

As for 1st, if people will pay for it, why not?

It's basic revenue model stuff.

If you have 88 seats in a GWR IET standard-class carriage (to take a random design) and 56 seats in an IET first-class carriage, and you can fill them all with walk-up tickets, then - taking the Swindon-Paddington single fare as an example - you get £6406.40 revenue from your standard-class carriage, and £6468.00 from your first-class carriage. Basically the same (<1% difference).

So at that point DfT gets to looking at whether there's a greater public good in taking 88 people off the roads rather than 56 (clearly there is), or whether the Junior Rail Minister who happens to be MP for Throggleton-on-Calder likes his first class travel on expenses (clearly he does), and so on.

The modelling will be many, many times more complex, involving advance tickets and off-peak usage and platform lengths and seat occupancy for short vs long journeys and so on. In the case of a new line like NPR, it will also involve some degree of finger-in-the-air prediction - which it's possible to get wrong, as Virgin arguably did. But generally, the answer shouldn't be "why not?", it should be "which gives the greatest return and the greatest public good?".

(Personally my suspicion is that the best returns come from the Chiltern/Lumo model of one comfortable class, but I have no access to any of this data so who knows. If DfT aren't watching Lumo's loadings closely, they should be. But then we're talking about the geniuses who wasted one third of a GWR IET carriage on a kitchen which is barely ever used, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

 

[Purple Orange]

If it is to have a homogenous fleet with HS2, it'll have to have the same amenities as HS2, so therefore, offer first class accommodation.

But HS2 is not NPR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But HS2 is not NPR.

It isn't, but neither is London to Birmingham the same as London to Glasgow, and nor is London to Oxford the same as London to Penzance (and that is ignoring those dastardly Reading commuters). Clearly there is a strong case for standardisation. Which to me says that just as TPE use standard 80x now, that they should use 200m HS2 trains in future.

 

[Purple Orange]

I voted No but only because I don't think most journeys will be long enough for journey times to make it necessary

This. The Birmingham services excluded as they are actual HS2 services, the principal journeys made on the other NPR services will be Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-Manchester and York--Leeds. All 35 minutes or less. You'll then have Warrington to Liverpool & Manchester, Huddersfield to Leeds & Manchester and Manchester Airport shuttles. The other combinations will form a much smaller proportion of journeys.

If you want to travel 1st class from York to Manchester or the airport, there will be the HS2 service to Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This. The Birmingham services excluded as they are actual HS2 services, the principal journeys made on the other NPR services will be Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-Manchester and York--Leeds. All 35 minutes or less. You'll then have Warrington to Liverpool & Manchester, Huddersfield to Leeds & Manchester and Manchester Airport shuttles. The other combinations will form a much smaller proportion of journeys.

If you want to travel 1st class from York to Manchester or the airport, there will be the HS2 service to Birmingham.

And if you want to travel 1st from Liverpool to York?

This might be a case for less 1st on the NPR units, e.g. perhaps half a vehicle, but not to remove it.

 

[Purple Orange]

It isn't, but neither is London to Birmingham the same as London to Glasgow, and nor is London to Oxford the same as London to Penzance (and that is ignoring those dastardly Reading commuters). Clearly there is a strong case for standardisation. Which to me says that just as TPE use standard 80x now, that they should use 200m HS2 trains in future.

You'd then have an over specified train running from Liverpool to York with poor passenger flow due to end doors. The max speed of the Liverpool-York NPR trains only needs to be 140mph compared to the Birmingham Newcastle which needs to run at a max of 225 mph. Those 4 NPR services need to be high capacity, quick transfer of journeys circa 30 minutes, no mandatory seat reservations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2021 ==

And if you want to travel 1st from Liverpool to York?

This might be a case for less 1st on the NPR units, e.g. perhaps half a vehicle, but not to remove it.

Simple. You can't, unless you change trains. The passenger volumes are too small.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'd then have an over specified train running from Liverpool to York with poor passenger flow due to end doors. The max speed of the Liverpool-York NPR trains only needs to be 140mph compared to the Birmingham Newcastle which needs to run at a max of 225 mph. Those 4 NPR services need to be high capacity, quick transfer of journeys circa 30 minutes, no mandatory seat reservations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2021 ==


Simple. You can't, unless you change trains. The passenger volumes are too small.

I wonder what TPE think is the value of 1st on their services? All NPR is is TPE but a bit faster. Surely if it didn't have value they would have binned it themselves?

 

[Purple Orange]

I wonder what TPE think is the value of 1st on their services? All NPR is is TPE but a bit faster. Surely if it didn't have value they would have binned it themselves?

The TPE 1st always looks relatively empty to me but that is only my observation. The principal passenger flows for 1st may be enough to fill 1st class carriages on 2 tph on the Birmingham-Newcastle services.

 

[LOL The Irony]

But HS2 is not NPR.

But HS2 services will use NPR and vice versa. You appear to be ignoring the point and context of my statement.

It isn't, but neither is London to Birmingham the same as London to Glasgow, and nor is London to Oxford the same as London to Penzance (and that is ignoring those dastardly Reading commuters). Clearly there is a strong case for standardisation. Which to me says that just as TPE use standard 80x now, that they should use 200m HS2 trains in future.

@Purple Orange is failing to understand this for some reason. A standard fleet for classic HS2 and NPR services makes perfect sense, and would therefore, all require first class provisions. Declassifying those provisions on NPR doesn't make much sense as you'll lose a potential revenue stream.

This. The Birmingham services excluded as they are actual HS2 services, the principal journeys made on the other NPR services will be Liverpool-Manchester, Leeds-Manchester and York--Leeds. All 35 minutes or less. You'll then have Warrington to Liverpool & Manchester, Huddersfield to Leeds & Manchester and Manchester Airport shuttles. The other combinations will form a much smaller proportion of journeys.

If you want to travel 1st class from York to Manchester or the airport, there will be the HS2 service to Birmingham.

So, the Birmingham to Leeds services deserve first class as they're a HS2 service, yet a service from Liverpool to York doesn't because it's an NPR service? This all being despite Birmingham to Leeds services being a quicker journey time than Liverpool to York. Using your argument, we should completely scrap first class on all Intercity services as it's possible to make short distance journeys aboard them, such as Crewe to Wilmslow on Avanti.

This might be a case for less 1st on the NPR units, e.g. perhaps half a vehicle, but not to remove it.

Eff having pragmatic solutions that cater to everyone, ammaright?

You'd then have an over specified train running from Liverpool to York with poor passenger flow due to end doors. The max speed of the Liverpool-York NPR trains only needs to be 140mph compared to the Birmingham Newcastle which needs to run at a max of 225 mph. Those 4 NPR services need to be high capacity, quick transfer of journeys circa 30 minutes, no mandatory seat reservations.

NPR trains will use HS2 between Rostherne Junction and Manchester Piccadilly, they have to be HSR compatible, meaning the same top speed of 225mph.

The TPE 1st always looks relatively empty to me but that is only my observation. The principal passenger flows for 1st may be enough to fill 1st class carriages on 2 tph on the Birmingham-Newcastle services.

Ok, so then first class is always filled, then the first class passengers complain that it's always full, so then extra first class carriages are needed, so we're back to square one.

 

[Purple Orange]

But HS2 services will use NPR and vice versa. You appear to be ignoring the point and context of my statement.

@Purple Orange is failing to understand this for some reason. A standard fleet for classic HS2 and NPR services makes perfect sense, and would therefore, all require first class provisions. Declassifying those provisions on NPR doesn't make much sense as you'll lose a potential revenue stream.

So, the Birmingham to Leeds services deserve first class as they're a HS2 service, yet a service from Liverpool to York doesn't because it's an NPR service? This all being despite Birmingham to Leeds services being a quicker journey time than Liverpool to York. Using your argument, we should completely scrap first class on all Intercity services as it's possible to make short distance journeys aboard them, such as Crewe to Wilmslow on Avanti.

Eff having pragmatic solutions that cater to everyone, ammaright?

NPR trains will use HS2 between Rostherne Junction and Manchester Piccadilly, they have to be HSR compatible, meaning the same top speed of 225mph.

Ok, so then first class is always filled, then the first class passengers complain that it's always full, so then extra first class carriages are needed, so we're back to square one.

What you’re asking for is a huge over provision of 1st class.

• A TPE 802 has 7% of seats given to 1st class.
• On XC, a 4-car 220 has 13% of seats given to 1st class and 10%-14% on a 5-car or 4-car 221.
• A 9-car Avanti has 21% of seats given to 1st class and 24% on an 11-car service.
• The HS2 services will be formed of a homogeneous fleet, so we could expect 20%-25% of seats given to 1st class on a 550 seat train.

That means 220-275 1st class seats on a 2 tph service pattern using HS2 stock, with standard class ranging from 825 to 880 each hour.

TPE and XC run 212 seats each hour in 1st on the services that the HS2 & NPR trains will be replacing (XC Brum to Manc, Leeds & Newcastle via Doncaster and the TPE 802s and Mk5a trains).

If you’re using a homogeneous fleet, you're expecting 1st class to grow by 211% to 289% on the Trans Pennine and XC principal markets. That is way too much to expect, whereas 220-275 seats each hour on a Birmingham-Newcastle service would cater for the 1st class demand.

 

[LOL The Irony]

What you’re asking for is a huge over provision of 1st class.

If a homogenous fleet means over provision of first class amenities, so be it. I will say that all the suggestions of limited first class have also been shot down by you, so your view of what's too much may be slightly skewed.

 

[Purple Orange]

If a homogenous fleet means over provision of first class amenities, so be it. I will say that all the suggestions of limited first class have also been shot down by you, so your view of what's too much may be slightly skewed.

That’s a huge waste of capacity, and as I pointed out earlier, why do we need 225 mph capable trains on that shuttle route?

As for my view on what is too much, I have just given numbers that highlights an unrealistic capacity increase.

As a hypothesis, a fleet of Zefiros or Valeros for HS2 and a version of the Javelins for NPR would work very well.

 

[HST43257]

I’m all for standardisation, but I can understand what @Purple Orange is saying about over provision of first class on NPR.

I’d like all of HS2 and NPR to have the same fleet of 200m, 225mph capable units.

What I might change is the amount of first class on these services.

I’d perhaps suggest 1.5/8 coaches on NPR, and 2.5/8 on HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you’re using a homogeneous fleet, you're expecting 1st class to grow by 211% to 289% on the Trans Pennine and XC principal markets. That is way too much to expect, whereas 220-275 seats each hour on a Birmingham-Newcastle service would cater for the 1st class demand.

It is very elastic demand based on price.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2021 ==

I’m all for standardisation, but I can understand what @Purple Orange is saying about over provision of first class on NPR.

I’d like all of HS2 and NPR to have the same fleet of 200m, 225mph capable units.

What I might change is the amount of first class on these services.

I’d perhaps suggest 1.5/8 coaches on NPR, and 2.5/8 on HS2.

I'd like it to be identical and operated by the same organisation, thus giving the ultimate flexibility.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Dec 2021 ==

That’s a huge waste of capacity, and as I pointed out earlier, why do we need 225 mph capable trains on that shuttle route?

Why are 80x all 140mph capable when they will never run at that speed? Answer: because it doesn't really cost more.

 

[HST43257]

I'd like it to be identical and operated by the same organisation, thus giving the ultimate flexibility.

I see 2 options

1) 2/8 First Class coaches
2) 2.5/8 First Class coaches, but demand responsive First Class tickets and declassification for everything remaining.

 

[py_megapixel]

Demand responsive First Class tickets and declassification for everything remaining.

Why would anyone buy a first class ticket, if the consequence of them not doing so would be first class accommodation being available to them on a standard class ticket?

 

[Purple Orange]

Why are 80x all 140mph capable when they will never run at that speed? Answer: because it doesn't really cost more.

The NPR services won’t actually run at 140mph, but 125mph instead, with 140mph capablity for making up time. This is like the rest of HS2, where 225mph (360kph) won’t be seen, but it’ll be 205mph (330kph), with 225mph used for making up lost time. The only reason the 80Xs, Pendolinos and IC225s don’t do 140mph is because our antiquated network doesn’t allow it. However I’d raise the question as to why wasn’t the Javelins made for the same speed as the Eurostar fleet?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would anyone buy a first class ticket, if the consequence of them not doing so would be first class accommodation being available to them on a standard class ticket?

Dunno, ask anyone who uses Thameslink where that is the case on every single train?

 

[mmh]

Why would anyone buy a first class ticket, if the consequence of them not doing so would be first class accommodation being available to them on a standard class ticket?

Happens on pretty much every flight with business and first class seating, where no you can't claim a refund because you paid more than the person sitting next to you. In exactly the same way as you can't on a train in Britain, unless the whole "cabin" is declassified.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That’s a huge waste of capacity

Imagine that you are in charge of timetabling HS2. Would you rather a fleet of homogenous trains or for those trains to have a first class provision suitable to the route they operate?

and as I pointed out earlier, why do we need 225 mph capable trains on that shuttle route?

See; the benefits of having a homogenous fleet. HS2 and NPR are to be interconnected and a standard fleet allows this to fully happen. For example, a diagram could be Liverpool - York - Liverpool - London - Leeds - Birmingham. And as stated, it'll use HS2, so the trains need to be at HS2 standards.

 

[Purple Orange]

Imagine that you are in charge of timetabling HS2. Would you rather a fleet of homogenous trains or for those trains to have a first class provision suitable to the route they operate?

See; the benefits of having a homogenous fleet. HS2 and NPR are to be interconnected and a standard fleet allows this to fully happen. For example, a diagram could be Liverpool - York - Liverpool - London - Leeds - Birmingham. And as stated, it'll use HS2, so the trains need to be at HS2 standards.

The IRP suggests that Liverpool services will need to be extended as far as York, but the case for having a Liverpool service go to Newcastle is not there. Therefore it can only be the Birmingham trains that head to Newcastle, and in that situation we would not see any diagrams forming of Liverpool-Leeds-Brum-Leeds-Liverpool.

There is probably more chance of it being Newcastle-Birmingham-Nottingham-Birmingham-Newcastle.