Can we return to the sectorised rail network like in the 1980s?

[miklcct]

The 1980 network was divided into InterCity, Network SouthEast and Regional Railways. Other European countries also currently use similar models in their branding and I really hope this can return, which will allow fare rationalisation to happen like the European model (reservation-heavy model on intercity, peak v.s. off-peak in Network SouthEast, flat fare on regionals), and each sector can operate in the most appropriate way for its traffic nature.

I see a huge benefit in such arrangement returning, which will mean:

Intercity:
Trains only stop at major population centres, designed for seating comfort over long distance with first and standard classes.
Most fares will be advance fares, with a high anytime fare only where which is priced for business travellers.
Ticket check is done prior boarding if possible, supplemented with on-train checks without a penalty fare scheme (where an on-board surcharge applies) since times between stops are long.
Services are run to a timetable which can be at irregular intervals, with passengers expected to reserve a seat beforehand.

Network SouthEast (and other commuter systems like Merseyrail):
Routes are organised like the Tube, with fixed stopping patterns identified by route numbers and frequent trains (at least 4 trains per hour on most lines).
Fares are divided into peak (defined by arrival time into London in the morning, and departure time from London in the evening), off-peak and super off-peak.
PAYG and penalty fare scheme operates throughout the network.
Passengers are expected to turn up and go with easy interchanges and not expected to read the timetable inside the network. Trains run to a frequency instead, like the Tube.

Regional Railways:
Short diesel trains stop at every local village run to the clockface, possibly with peak time extensions, with only standard class available.
Stations are generally unstaffed and trains run as paytrains where people can buy on board without penalty, with a flat fare throughout the day.
Operation is subsidised by local governments.

And this sectorisation can end our tradition where we can buy a ticket to any station in the National Rail network, as it is divided into separate networks. In this model, tickets on InterCity network are bought point-to-point with interchange allowed on both ends into the commuter network (like the model used in Helsinki where long distance and commuter trains are different networks with different tickets), regional railways are charged by individual routes, and commuter networks have zonal pricing and PAYG.

Is this system workable in our network? If not what we need to do to return to the sector model?

 

[A S Leib]

Most fares will be advance fares, with a high anytime fare only where which is priced for business travellers.
Ticket check is done prior boarding if possible, supplemented with on-train checks without a penalty fare scheme (where an on-board surcharge applies) since times between stops are long.
Services are run to a timetable which can be at irregular intervals, with passengers expected to reserve a seat beforehand.

Good luck convincing people of the necessity to reserve a seat to go from Penrith to Carlisle, or Didcot to Swindon.

Preboarding would make sense as long as those with tight connections to the intercity service can still have their tickets checked on board.

Leisure travel still exists on long-distance operators, including those who'd rather have flexibility and don't need to travel before 9 or 10; what good would abolishing off-peak fares do?

In which situations would an irregular timetable help, apart from possibly on routes with only a limited intercity service to begin with?

Network SouthEast (and other commuter systems like Merseyrail):
Routes are organised like the Tube, with fixed stopping patterns identified by route numbers and frequent trains (at least 4 trains per hour on most lines).
Fares are divided into peak (defined by arrival time into London in the morning, and departure time from London in the evening), off-peak and super off-peak.
PAYG and penalty fare scheme operates throughout the network.
Passengers are expected to turn up and go with easy interchanges and not expected to read the timetable inside the network. Trains run to a frequency instead, like the Tube.

That makes sense, although I'm not sure if named or numbered routes would be useful / more memorable to more people.

Regional Railways:
Short diesel trains stop at every local village run to the clockface, possibly with peak time extensions, with only standard class available.
Stations are generally unstaffed and trains run as paytrains where people can buy on board without penalty, with a flat fare throughout the day.

I doubt 'short' trains would always be enough, and why should the fact that they're not in a big city or on an intercity route keep them from being electrified, even if it makes sense to prioritise the latter? I think some routes which would probably come under regional (i.e. Cardiff - Taunton, Carlisle - Barrow / Leeds / Newcastle) are long enough to still justify having advance fares available.

 

[PG]

Intercity:
Services are run to a timetable which can be at irregular intervals, with passengers expected to reserve a seat beforehand.

Good luck attracting many passengers without a regular frequency!

Regional Railways:
Short diesel trains stop at every local village run to the clockface, possibly with peak time extensions, with only standard class available.

Diesel trains are on the way out!

And this sectorisation can end our tradition where we can buy a ticket to any station in the National Rail network, as it is divided into separate networks.

Absolutely NOT. The ability to buy a through ticket between any stations on the network is one huge plus point which was hard fought for at privatisation. Remove this and you're one step closer to the race to the bottom that characterised the bus industry immediately after privatisation.

Is this system workable in our network? If not what we need to do to return to the sector model?

A return to sectorisation might be desirable for passengers but not in the way you seem to envisage. As to the likelihood, I can't see it happening.

 

[Bevan Price]

Some very poor ideas in my opinion.

There will always be a proportion of passengers for who reservations are unwanted or unnecessary. A lot need the freedom to change their journey time at short notice. Others, particularly some leisure passengers want the convenience of being able to decide to spontaneously make a trip, e.g. dependent on weather conditions. Try to enforce compulsory reservations will encourage them to use a car rather than rail. And many long distance fares are already excessive without encouraging further increases for on-demand travel. Some problems of overcrowding could be solved by reducing the proportion of first class seating.

We need to end fragmentation - there often seemed/seems to be inadequate communication between sectors or TOCs.

The use of short trains has been a recipe for disaster - gross overcrowding has been a widespread complaint in many parts of the country. I wonder how many potential passengers have been lost from, e.g. Cross Country, because passengers became tired of overcrowding and stopped travelling by train?

 

[yorksrob]

The OP starts of very well by saying, can we return to the very sensible system of Sectorisation, then goes on to suggest silly things like "this can end the situation where we can buy a ticket to any other station....."

Sectorisation was/is clearly the best way to manage the network, but only as part of the greater organisation, i.e. BR.

 

[BayPaul]

And this sectorisation can end our tradition where we can buy a ticket to any station in the National Rail network, as it is divided into separate networks. In this model, tickets on InterCity network are bought point-to-point with interchange allowed on both ends into the commuter network (like the model used in Helsinki where long distance and commuter trains are different networks with different tickets), regional railways are charged by individual routes, and commuter networks have zonal pricing and PAYG.

OK, I give up. How is this an improvement in any way. To give you some examples in your area, you are suggesting that it shouldn't be possible to buy a ticket from Bournemouth to Salisbury (NSE to Southampton then RR), and that whilst you can buy a ticket from Bournemouth to Reading, Poole to Reading would require two...

 

[JonathanH]

And this sectorisation can end our tradition where we can buy a ticket to any station in the National Rail network, as it is divided into separate networks.

Aren't you complaining in another thread about not being able to buy a ticket from Bournemouth to Greenwich via Reading? While Bournemouth to London was not Intercity in the late British Rail days, times move on and the current operator might want to suggest it comes under the Advance Purchase only sector in your proposed framework.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose the OP is envisioning sectorisation as an alternative form of privatisation, in which case is interesting to consider.

In reality though it needs a unified railway system to work

 

[CBlue]

OK, I give up. How is this an improvement in any way. To give you some examples in your area, you are suggesting that it shouldn't be possible to buy a ticket from Bournemouth to Salisbury (NSE to Southampton then RR), and that whilst you can buy a ticket from Bournemouth to Reading, Poole to Reading would require two...

Ironically OP mentions in another thread he wants to get into transport planning work!

I also can't help but note that there isn't any justification for these changes, apart from stating that it would have a "huge benefit" - well, please spell it out!

I seriously hope OP wouldn't think of trying to pitch this in a job interview as he'd likely get laughed out the door.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ironically OP mentions in another thread he wants to get into transport planning work!

I also can't help but note that there isn't any justification for these changes, apart from stating that it would have a "huge benefit" - well, please spell it out!

I seriously hope OP wouldn't think of trying to pitch this in a job interview as he'd likely get laughed out the door.

Ever since the OP joined the forum he’s wanted the railway to be more like the metro in Hong Kong...

 

[tbtc]

1. "No"
2. If you were starting the railway network from scratch then maybe, but even then, probably "no"

For example, looking at the Intercity definitions...

I see a huge benefit in such arrangement returning, which will mean:

Intercity:
Trains only stop at major population centres, designed for seating comfort over long distance with first and standard classes.
Most fares will be advance fares, with a high anytime fare only where which is priced for business travellers.
Ticket check is done prior boarding if possible, supplemented with on-train checks without a penalty fare scheme (where an on-board surcharge applies) since times between stops are long.
Services are run to a timetable which can be at irregular intervals, with passengers expected to reserve a seat beforehand

...sounds nice in theory.

But BR's "Intercity" was quite inconsistent (e.g. Newcastle - Durham - York - Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool apparently didn't link enough "cities" but Victoria to Gatwick did... 158s and Mk2s could be Intercity so it wasn't a consistent level of service)

Looking at the Newcastle - Liverpool service - currently it's the "local" train from Newcastle to York (it can stop at every intermediate station - Chester le Street, Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk) but then becomes the "fast" service from York to Liverpool.

So, in this binary viewpoint, is it "InterCity" or not? And, if it's InterCity then does that mean abandoning Chester le Street etc? In which case, what space is there on the network for additional services to pick up these stops? Are you going to start ripping up various long established services to ensure the "purity" of "Intercity"?

It's the same when people see the way that railways work in places like Germany and then come up with a simplistic idea of replicating that here (which might be fine if you were building railways from scratch, but a mess when trying to crowbar things onto our messy railway)

I'm not saying that the British network is perfect, but it exists - we have had HSTs (and now 800s) stopping at "local" towns in Cornwall/ Northumberland etc, we have lines where there's one type of train service because the market isn't big enough to sustain multiple (or because there isn't capacity on the line for a stopper)

We also have some interworking that can mean a unit fills in on "local" turns in between "longer distance" services

So Retford to Doncaster would require reservations? Or we'd have to cut some of the current services from London to Leeds/ Newcastle to squeeze in "local train for local people" stopping at Grantham/ Newark/ Retford?

(and that's without the complicating factor of Wales etc)

I've not against out new nationalised GBR insisting on common brandings, I

Routes are organised like the Tube, with fixed stopping patterns identified by route numbers and frequent trains (at least 4 trains per hour on most lines)

Sounds good in theory, fine on lines where everything is all-stops like most of the Underground but how dogmatic would you have to be about stopping patterns on other routes?

Stations are generally unstaffed and trains run as paytrains where people can buy on board without penalty, with a flat fare throughout the day

So no more peaks into Manchester/ Birmingham etc?

Operation is subsidised by local governments

1. Which "local governments"? (given that train services cross boundaries)
2. Be very careful devolving funding like this - look at how many bus services have been cut in evenings/Sundays, as local authorities struggle to finance tendered routes when trying to find money for social services/ libraries etc - whilst Westminster has continued to fund heavily loss making train services (even if they have fewer passengers than a bus service that had to be scrapped due to insufficient bums on seats. People on here complain about Westminster but giving funding to "local governments" will make it much easier for them to cut things

Is this system workable in our network? If not what we need to do to return to the sector model?

Why is your starting point that we must return to the "sector model" though? You seem to have come up with the answer that you want and are now trying to find a way of justifying it

Other than some enthusiasts have a fixation with certain aspects of the final days of British Rail

 

[Irascible]

We need to end fragmentation - there often seemed/seems to be inadequate communication between sectors or TOCs.

Can we concentrate on this rather than rebranding everything? national public service & commercial competition when there's a layer everyone has to use ( unlike say, telecomms ) just doesn't seem to want to mesh.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Other than some enthusiasts have a fixation with certain aspects of the final days of British Rail

I think to defend those enthusiasts (and I, as you can probably tell from my picture of an unbuilt Networker unit, am one of them), the final days of British Rail where when BR seemed to finally find its feet. Passenger numbers were healthy, there was an aura of optimism, new and exciting trains were being built and of course, the glory of Network SouthEast was introduced. I don't know what it was about NSE, but it was extremely iconic. Even as a very small child (like toddler age) I can vaguely remember seeing a flash of NSE livery on the TV or in a magazine or something and immediately knew "that was the train we go on". Same with the Intercity livery.

 

[Tayway]

I quite like the idea of having different "categories" of trains like in many countries on the continent, but making them operationally different from each other is a bad idea. Sectors should simply be public-facing brands, and possibly a way of distinguishing on-board facilities or sources of funding (similar to the PTE-supported networks under British Rail), not isolated fiefdoms with no flexibility or through ticketing.

Also, what would happen to services that don't fit the rigid "intercity, commuter or rural" pattern? You should really have a seperate "regional express" category for things like TransPennine Express, Cross Country's Turbostar-operated services, and longer distance trains in the South East which don't lend themselves to the all-stops, high-frequency patterns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I quite like the idea of having different "categories" of trains like in many countries on the continent, but making them operationally different from each other is a bad idea.

I am with you there. The idea that an InterCity train has certain specified quality features, for example, is a desirable piece of branding. At present TOC brands sort of do this, but post GBR it should come back in that form.

It should be operated and structured in the most financially expedient way regardless of such brands.

 

[miklcct]

1. "No"
2. If you were starting the railway network from scratch then maybe, but even then, probably "no"

For example, looking at the Intercity definitions...



...sounds nice in theory.

But BR's "Intercity" was quite inconsistent (e.g. Newcastle - Durham - York - Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool apparently didn't link enough "cities" but Victoria to Gatwick did... 158s and Mk2s could be Intercity so it wasn't a consistent level of service)

Looking at the Newcastle - Liverpool service - currently it's the "local" train from Newcastle to York (it can stop at every intermediate station - Chester le Street, Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk) but then becomes the "fast" service from York to Liverpool.

So, in this binary viewpoint, is it "InterCity" or not? And, if it's InterCity then does that mean abandoning Chester le Street etc? In which case, what space is there on the network for additional services to pick up these stops? Are you going to start ripping up various long established services to ensure the "purity" of "Intercity"?

It is possible to run a train as InterCity for a section, and regional for the remainder.

It's the same when people see the way that railways work in places like Germany and then come up with a simplistic idea of replicating that here (which might be fine if you were building railways from scratch, but a mess when trying to crowbar things onto our messy railway)

I'm not saying that the British network is perfect, but it exists - we have had HSTs (and now 800s) stopping at "local" towns in Cornwall/ Northumberland etc, we have lines where there's one type of train service because the market isn't big enough to sustain multiple (or because there isn't capacity on the line for a stopper)

We also have some interworking that can mean a unit fills in on "local" turns in between "longer distance" services

So Retford to Doncaster would require reservations? Or we'd have to cut some of the current services from London to Leeds/ Newcastle to squeeze in "local train for local people" stopping at Grantham/ Newark/ Retford?

(and that's without the complicating factor of Wales etc)

I've not against out new nationalised GBR insisting on common brandings, I

On trains which run as local / regional for a section, and InterCity for another section, no reservation is applicable in the local section.

Sounds good in theory, fine on lines where everything is all-stops like most of the Underground but how dogmatic would you have to be about stopping patterns on other routes?



So no more peaks into Manchester/ Birmingham etc?

In commuter networks, every train with the same route number must have the same stopping pattern. If there is variation the route can be named using A, B suffix, etc., but this is not preferable.

1. Which "local governments"? (given that train services cross boundaries)
2. Be very careful devolving funding like this - look at how many bus services have been cut in evenings/Sundays, as local authorities struggle to finance tendered routes when trying to find money for social services/ libraries etc - whilst Westminster has continued to fund heavily loss making train services (even if they have fewer passengers than a bus service that had to be scrapped due to insufficient bums on seats. People on here complain about Westminster but giving funding to "local governments" will make it much easier for them to cut things

I think it is undesirable for Westminster to fund train services where it is only relevant to a local region. Politically if local rural trains are funded locally, local candidates have to take these into consideration for local support. Under the Westminster model, keeping / removing rural trains doesn't help politically.

Westminster should fund for infrastructure upgrades, InterCity services, etc. which is relevant nationally.

Why is your starting point that we must return to the "sector model" though? You seem to have come up with the answer that you want and are now trying to find a way of justifying it

Other than some enthusiasts have a fixation with certain aspects of the final days of British Rail

The continent has a much better public transport than us and that model was closest to what the continent has.

I think to defend those enthusiasts (and I, as you can probably tell from my picture of an unbuilt Networker unit, am one of them), the final days of British Rail where when BR seemed to finally find its feet. Passenger numbers were healthy, there was an aura of optimism, new and exciting trains were being built and of course, the glory of Network SouthEast was introduced. I don't know what it was about NSE, but it was extremely iconic. Even as a very small child (like toddler age) I can vaguely remember seeing a flash of NSE livery on the TV or in a magazine or something and immediately knew "that was the train we go on". Same with the Intercity livery.

That's the power of branding. The former SWT livery was also good but now I'm not satisfied of the SWR livery.

I quite like the idea of having different "categories" of trains like in many countries on the continent, but making them operationally different from each other is a bad idea. Sectors should simply be public-facing brands, and possibly a way of distinguishing on-board facilities or sources of funding (similar to the PTE-supported networks under British Rail), not isolated fiefdoms with no flexibility or through ticketing.

Also, what would happen to services that don't fit the rigid "intercity, commuter or rural" pattern? You should really have a seperate "regional express" category for things like TransPennine Express, Cross Country's Turbostar-operated services, and longer distance trains in the South East which don't lend themselves to the all-stops, high-frequency patterns.

Thanks for pointing out this. We should also have RegioExpress for services like Weymouth / Portsmouth / Exeter - London, at a higher specification than commuter trains but lower specification than InterCity services. Such trains normally run every half an hour or every hour. A 3-tier ticketing structure (advance, off-peak and peak) can be used on such routes, compared to advance / anytime on InterCity or super off peak / off peak / peak on commuter networks.

 

[tbtc]

I think to defend those enthusiasts (and I, as you can probably tell from my picture of an unbuilt Networker unit, am one of them), the final days of British Rail where when BR seemed to finally find its feet. Passenger numbers were healthy, there was an aura of optimism, new and exciting trains were being built and of course, the glory of Network SouthEast was introduced. I don't know what it was about NSE, but it was extremely iconic. Even as a very small child (like toddler age) I can vaguely remember seeing a flash of NSE livery on the TV or in a magazine or something and immediately knew "that was the train we go on". Same with the Intercity livery.

It really depends on where you were

NSE had a lot of money thrown at it in the decade before privatisation (the cosmetic stuff is often lauded by the same people who complained about TOCs spending money repainting trains/ putting up new signs at stations)

But elsewhere we were seeing longer trains replaced by shorter trains (e.g. loco hauled rakes replaced by single Sprinters), we were seeing stations closed, we were seeing fare rises more than once a year, track work "simplified", we were seeing stations losing their evening/Sunday services...

I think that the best example I can give is three things that happened around pretty much the same time (1993ish):

• BR didn't have enough money to deliver the Provincial fleet that they wanted - NSE took sixty six carriages worth of what were meant to be 158s (numbered as 159s)
• BR didn't have enough money to deliver the Provincial fleet that they wanted - so 35x 155s were chopped into 70x 153s - resources stretched thinner (as the 155s themselves were fewer carriages than the trains that they had replaced - remember the days of "two for three"?)
• BR came up with some fancy marketing mock-ups for all of the swanky new units they wanted to order for NSE ("Universal Networkers" etc)

I can understand why the final days of BR must have looked good if you were in the NSE area - what I find frustrating is where people take the view that "a publicly owned BR were great because they did all of these great things, but any bad things that happened were because the Big Bad Government - BR were a mixture of good and bad - it really depended on where you were - as you can probably tell I didn't live in the NSE area!

what would happen to services that don't fit the rigid "intercity, commuter or rural" pattern? You should really have a seperate "regional express" category for things like TransPennine Express, Cross Country's Turbostar-operated services, and longer distance trains in the South East which don't lend themselves to the all-stops, high-frequency patterns.

This is the problem with the people who want to simple little categories like Intercity/ Provincial (or whatever the equivalents are in Germany etc, which people also like to bring into these debates) - we have a messy railway where some services tick multiple boxes and some trains run on various types of service during their daily diagrams - e.g. some services are "fast" on one part but then "slow" on others, there's not a simple formula to determine whether a route "deserves" a restaurant/ buffet car/ trolley/ no catering - the railway is messy!

The idea that an InterCity train has certain specified quality features, for example, is a desirable piece of branding

Like the InterCity 158s that BR used to run?

I know that you want to try to fit things into neat boxes but modern trains aren't like that - e.g. is a 110mph EMU with 2+2 seating (like a 350/1) an InterCity train? Or, because of it's door positions, is it only "outer suburban" (as some people call it)?

Some routes require more (either because of the average journey length or because there's more competition from air/ coaches/ motorways) - we should run the appropriate trains (and provide appropriate facilities) - if I'm looking at a train from Sheffield to St Pancras I'll compare the train to the coach/driving to London etc - I'm not using a train from Cardiff to Paddington so the quality of train/facilities on that service really don't matter

 

[Mike Machin]

We tend to think of services, branding etc from an enthusiasts point-of-view. To 99% of the population they're all just trains!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like the InterCity 158s that BR used to run?

BR never branded any 158s as InterCity. The XC ones were branded "CrossCountry Express", which is in line with "TransPennine Express" using the same units.

I know that you want to try to fit things into neat boxes but modern trains aren't like that - e.g. is a 110mph EMU with 2+2 seating (like a 350/1) an InterCity train? Or, because of it's door positions, is it only "outer suburban" (as some people call it)?

I wouldn't get hung up on door positions, but 350s definitely are not IC by virtue of the sham First Class. One of my standards for using the term IC would be that First Class has proper 2+1 seating. Others would be things like distances between stops, 2+2 in Standard and catering provision. Those are the sort of thing used in most European countries that do have such branding.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

We tend to think of services, branding etc from an enthusiasts point-of-view. To 99% of the population they're all just trains!

I don't think that is true at all.

 

[PTR 444]

Also, what would happen to services that don't fit the rigid "intercity, commuter or rural" pattern? You should really have a seperate "regional express" category for things like TransPennine Express, Cross Country's Turbostar-operated services, and longer distance trains in the South East which don't lend themselves to the all-stops, high-frequency patterns.

I would argue that TPE is mainly intercity these days with the use of Class 802s and 397s on its core routes. Apart from that, I think a “Regional Express” brand is a good idea for those routes which are longer in distance and more limited stop than typical commuter routes, but don’t quite live up to Intercity standard. I’d say this would work on the longer former Regional Railways routes, as well as some former NSE routes such as London Waterloo - Weymouth/Exeter, Marylebone - Birmingham and Kings Cross - Kings Lynn.

 

[Starmill]

It has been discussed ad infinitum that Wakefield Westgate - Leeds and Durham - Newcastle cannot have adequate capacity provided for them by just the Northern services. It is close to impossible as well as being unnecessary as restricting the TransPennine Express, LNER, and CrossCountry services to reservations only would waste capacity. These are sub-15 minute journeys for which people don't really mind standing. Penrith to Carlisle and Diss to Norwich are other very popular one stop hops which rail is fairly well suited to but a proposal to force people to let a train go by making it reservation compulsory would destroy this market. Again, these journeys are only 15 minutes!

 

[tbtc]

BR never branded any 158s as InterCity. The XC ones were branded "CrossCountry Express", which is in line with "TransPennine Express" using the same units

• "XC was part of InterCity"
• "XC operated 158s"
• Therefore "BR used 158s on InterCity services"

Then again, if you want to use "branding" as your definition of whether something was "InterCity" or not, are you including all of the things that got "Mainline" branding too?

I wouldn't get hung up on door positions, but 350s definitely are not IC by virtue of the sham First Class. One of my standards for using the term IC would be that First Class has proper 2+1 seating. Others would be things like distances between stops, 2+2 in Standard and catering provision. Those are the sort of thing used in most European countries that do have such branding

Fair enough about 2+2 in Standard, but I'm not too bothered about the spacing of First Class seats (it affects a minority of passengers)

What kind of formula are you using on distances between stops? Is the London - Glasgow train that stops at Coventry/ Birmingham International/ New Street/ Sandwell & Dudley/ Wolverhampton "InterCity" enough? What about the planned Avanti service that does all of their "local" stops between London and the West Midlands (Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby etc)? Or would you take out stops like Durham/ Bristol Parkway/ Wakefield Westgate/ Stockport/ Chesterfield that are relatively close to main city centre stations? Would Manchester - Edinburgh trains have to run non-stop through both Oxford Road and Haymarket to avoid triggering your threshold?

It's nice in theory, maybe if we were starting from scratch, but people are trying to form strict definitions to suit some binary concepts, when British Rail were pretty inconsistent in their day (trying to come up with a hard and fast rule seems pointless when BR themselves don't seem to have had any justifications for what got a red stripe other than sticking it on the most profitable services, regardless of the distances between stops/ top speeds/ door position etc - it was a very inexact science at the time, yet here we are treating the InterCity definitions like they were carved in tablets of stone)

 

[SargeNpton]

Looking at the other recent threads that the OP has started, there seems to be a common theme of suggesting unworkable ideas.

Are you just trying to provoke discussions, or are you serious about these?

 

[Bletchleyite]

• "XC was part of InterCity"
• "XC operated 158s"
• Therefore "BR used 158s on InterCity services"

A logical fallacy. BR specifically did not brand these services as InterCity, they branded them as "Express", to make clear the difference in the offering.

Then again, if you want to use "branding" as your definition of whether something was "InterCity" or not, are you including all of the things that got "Mainline" branding too?

BR didn't use a "Mainline" brand other than for freight. If you're talking about Chiltern, no, none of their services are InterCity - they are all regional expresses or regional trains. For one, they have no catering.

Fair enough about 2+2 in Standard, but I'm not too bothered about the spacing of First Class seats (it affects a minority of passengers)

Doesn't matter. A strong brand gives passengers confidence in what they will get. For instance, if you book a Premier Inn you know what you'll get - that's even their current advertising promotion!

What kind of formula are you using on distances between stops? Is the London - Glasgow train that stops at Coventry/ Birmingham International/ New Street/ Sandwell & Dudley/ Wolverhampton "InterCity" enough? What about the planned Avanti service that does all of their "local" stops between London and the West Midlands (Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby etc)? Or would you take out stops like Durham/ Bristol Parkway/ Wakefield Westgate/ Stockport/ Chesterfield that are relatively close to main city centre stations? Would Manchester - Edinburgh trains have to run non-stop through both Oxford Road and Haymarket to avoid triggering your threshold?

If you look at DB, who have done this for years, you can see what makes sense. Clearly, grouped city stations like Oxford Road/Piccadilly or indeed Euston and Old Oak don't count any more than DB would call an ICE a Regionalexpress because it stopped at the three main Hamburg stations.

It's about giving an understanding of the product, not absolutes. At the moment, the TOC brands pretty much achieve that, but without TOCs it is helpful to know the difference, at a glance, between the service offerings.

Again, I don't get why we oppose this so much here when almost every other country in the world does it to some extent. When British/English exceptionalism comes up, it's usually Britain/England that's wrong.

 

[ashkeba]

It's about giving an understanding of the product, not absolutes. At the moment, the TOC brands pretty much achieve that, but without TOCs it is helpful to know the difference, at a glance, between the service offerings.

Again, I don't get why we oppose this so much here when almost every other country in the world does it to some extent. When British/English exceptionalism comes up, it's usually Britain/England that's wrong.

This. The mive to one franchise at some London terminals undid this in bits, and so did the midlands reshuffle between Central, Crosscountry, Midland Mainline and EMT/EMR. Services like Ipswich-London and Oxford-Reading are hard for normal people to predict what comfort level of train will be there.

 

[tbtc]

A strong brand gives passengers confidence in what they will get. For instance, if you book a Premier Inn you know what you'll get - that's even their current advertising promotion!

Some brands need that - people might book hotel rooms in various different cities - people want the kind of bland uniformity when it comes to McDonalds etc - but people shop around to find the hotel room or fast food that suits them - people don't tend to shop around for train services - hence why I said that the train service from Cardiff to London is of no relevance to whether I decide to use the train from Sheffield to London

Some services warrant restaurant cars/ buffets/ trolleys/ nothing... some services warrant 2+1/ 2+2/ 3+2 seating... just like some routes warrant a full evening/Sunday service, some stations warrant a pub/ coffee shop/ nothing...

Advertise things like First Class facilities in the timetable, so that passengers can see what they can expect to get

Again, I don't get why we oppose this so much here when almost every other country in the world does it to some extent. When British/English exceptionalism comes up, it's usually Britain/England that's wrong.

You keep bringing this "exceptionalism" up

It's not that though - it's more that we are dealing with a living breathing network and you are trying to design your Utopian solution onto it

If we were building a brand new railway then a lot of what you say sounds reasonable, but we aren't, which means either we accept that things don't fit neatly into binary notions (e.g. the London to Glasgow train stopping at places like Sandwell) or we start ripping up existing services to make them suit the arbitrary definitions that you've come up with

Existing train services have evolved to fit their markets or the capacity constraints on the lines or the lack of other services (as well as the messy way that the UK has grown, rather than conurbations neatly set out) - most railway lines exist because of competing nineteenth century businessmen trying to make profit rather than any nationwide committee deciding where to build lines - it's a mess - even our trains are compromises (like the "suburban" doors on 110mph EMUs)

Other countries may have avoided a number of our mistakes (just like with loading gauges!) but trying to impose a Germanic solution will mean a lot of disruption to try to suit a handful of people who want the kind of railway of their childhood

 

[Taunton]

Intercity:

Most fares will be advance fares, with a high anytime fare only where which is priced for business travellers.

You have already turned off a significant proportion of demand. Whatever is the point of having services from London to other major cities every 30 or even 20 minutes, near-Metro frequencies, if I and the family can't turn up and go - which, for reminder, is exactly how it is going by car, we leave when ready.

Coming in from the London suburbs, it's a positive point to just take the next one. Someone late getting ready to leave the house. Short delay coming in on the Underground. All of that. We just want to take the next one, and don't want overpriced business fares for all the kids.