Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If this route is to persist with the dismal service, lack of seats and totally unsuitable rolling stock, there should be a clearly visible prominent advisory on the website warning that - "This route is operated by older diesel trains which do not offer the level of comfort found in trains used on other longer-distance services. Trains are often formed with fewer carriages than normal and this can lead to severe overcrowding at busy times, and if travelling for time-critical purposes, please bare in mind that cancellations can be more frequent than services you may have experienced on other routes. If you agree to these conditions, click here to book.' - or something similar.
Would it also be possible to say, "This service runs over a long distance, but is actually a number of regional services put together, and many passengers are making shorter journeys. It uses regional rolling stock, which does not have the same facilities found on trains running to and from London."?
How much onus is there on an operator to actually do this?
Which other routes need this kind of warning? Where would the warning be conveyed?
Would it also be possible to say, "This service runs over a long distance, but is actually a number of regional services put together, and many passengers are making shorter journeys. It uses regional rolling stock, which does not have the same facilities found on trains running to and from London."?
Back in the day we had a system for this that other countries copied then we went back on.
IC - InterCity service - high quality rolling stock, First Class and catering RR - Regional Railways service - er, not the above
If we're talking about something like the Liverpool-Norwich, there was something more specific than that - Alphaline - which was shown with a stylised "A" logo* on the timetable, and was described in some detail as basically being a Class 158 with a trolley. And there was NorthWest Express with the chevron and the green stripe 156, and the Network Express with the Turbos and Networkers darn Sarf.
Why on earth we abandoned all this I have no idea. Some TOCs even carried it on briefly into privatisation, e.g. GWR (in its original form) used InterCity branding and Virgin had InterCity and Express services (the latter being 158s). I seem to recall a charge for using the INTERCITY brand, but need that really have been the case?
* Someone tell Avanti so they can come up with one that isn't just the basic Windows system font.
Things seem to have gravitated towards the split being on whether or not a train goes to London. CrossCountry is something of a question mark, but is moving towards being a series of regional trains joined together. Chiltern is the anomaly since it goes to London, but is not Intercity in the sense that anyone would remember.
Do train companies need to make this explicit? I am not convinced. To say that the train is short, or that there is no buffet, is saying that the service is not what some people might want. That is a marketing nightmare. Far better to just explain the available benefits that are on the train.
TfW are playing with an Intercity service by bringing the Mk4 to the Manchester to Cardiff route, but the result is still not what I would call Intercity and creates too many compromises on other services and journeys. IF TfW could create an Intercity network which centered on Cardiff that may be different, but the demand is not there.
It would be far better to just ensure that there were trains actually running and that the services advertised on the trains were provided. We are currently a long way from that.
I think a good start would be to abandon counted seats (no specific seat) for Advance tickets, and make it clear at booking stage. Especially where part of a journey is allocated a seat, should be all or none.
Anyone who currently books almost any rail journey with a connecting train at end, gets it presented as one quality at the ticket buying portal. Not catering will be for part journey, specific seat reservation will be part journey etc
Things seem to have gravitated towards the split being on whether or not a train goes to London. CrossCountry is something of a question mark, but is moving towards being a series of regional trains joined together. Chiltern is the anomaly since it goes to London, but is not Intercity in the sense that anyone would remember.
Chiltern isn't an anomaly, it's a South East (and secondarily Birmingham) commuter service, just like all the other ones, and like some of the other ones happens to offer some cheap fares to get people to choose it over the InterCity option.
The only anomaly it presents is being diesel, but that doesn't fundamentally change what it is, and if it was wired and operated with 4 and 8-car Class 350 sets it wouldn't really feel much different.
Chiltern isn't an anomaly, it's a South East (and secondarily Birmingham) commuter service, just like all the other ones, and like some of the other ones happens to offer some cheap fares to get people to choose it over the InterCity option.
The only anomaly it presents is being diesel, but that doesn't fundamentally change what it is, and if it was wired and operated with 4 and 8-car Class 350 sets it wouldn't really feel much different.
I think it is an anomaly because it uses stock, and stock lengths, otherwise seen on regional services elsewhere. As you say, the other lines with similar stock use longer train lengths.
Thinking further I realised a branch classification is needed for the lines which struggle to justify multiple carriages and/or lack the length to have facilities like toilets on board.
Then there is a commuter classification which considers long trains which also do not necessarily have any facilities beyond seats. This one is going to be the most controversial because some have tables charging points etc, whilst others do not. Some in this class have toilets and others do not. Some carry first class and some do not.
Maybe we then we need 4 classifications, Intercity, commuter, rural branch and other. I would still contend Chiltern has a feel of "other" about it.
Intercity still works out as only the trains which serve London, but no longer covers all trains which serve London.
I think it is an anomaly because it uses stock, and stock lengths, otherwise seen on regional services elsewhere. As you say, the other lines with similar stock use longer train lengths.
But this doesn't really affect the service. There's not, from a layman's perspective, much difference between a Turbostar and a 350/1. The length of the trains (mostly) just reflect demand.
So really you sensibly have something like:
IC (InterCity) - long distance service with First Class and catering provision for more than two thirds of the journey length, 2+2 Standard seating, 2+1 First seating IR (InterRegional) - long distance service which may lack some of the IC features, but still has 2+2 in Standard - I'm thinking of the Liverpool to Norwich as an example, or some TPE services, or the LNR Crewes RE (RegionalExpress) - other semifast services L (Local) - other local or commuter services that stop at all or most* stations
and perhaps
M (Metro) - urban, frequent (min 2tph) all stations services in clockface timetables, may not have toilets
* e.g. I would have MKC-Euston stoppers as R despite them not going up the DC line and not serving Wembley - in the eyes of most they're the stopper.
You could call them what you liked, but I do think the idea of a consistent brand encompassing what a train is (without getting too picky and ending up like India with a huge number of classifications and classes) is a good thing and exists in most countries.
As others have said, its not just about type of rolling stock, its also about other facitities. Toilets, Catering, WiFi, at seat charging are probably the main ones. Unless there is a choice of operators and ticket prices its a case of take it or leave it anyway.
The unfortunate part about it is that for a lot of services that do not go to London the trains are too short and overcrowded, and this has more impact on the journey quality than the type of rolling stock. I cant see operators putting "This service will be 3 car, and even if you have a reserved seat good luck 'cos you wont be able get to it and you will be standing for most of journey, and the luggage storage is totally inadequate."
As others have said, its not just about type of rolling stock, its also about other facitities. Toilets, Catering, WiFi, at seat charging are probably the main ones.
To be fair the timetable system does have the capacity for notes of this nature. I don't think there are standard ones for toilets or wifi, but there are for catering.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The unfortunate part about it is that for a lot of services that do not go to London the trains are too short and overcrowded, and this has more impact on the journey quality than the type of rolling stock. I cant see operators putting "This service will be 3 car, and even if you have a reserved seat good luck 'cos you wont be able get to it and you will be standing for most of journey, and the luggage storage is totally inadequate."
Including actual and expected loading information in timetable searches is the way to deal with this one - the length is largely irrelevant (unless you sort of know that any 4 car on the WCML will likely be overcrowded unless it's 4am) but the loading information is important.
SBB has done this for years in Switzerland, and UK TOCs mostly have data now. Just get it in the planners, and introduce an option "so far as possible avoid crowded trains where I may not get a seat".
But this doesn't really affect the service. There's not, from a layman's perspective, much difference between a Turbostar and a 350/1. The length of the trains (mostly) just reflect demand.
So really you sensibly have something like:
IC (InterCity) - long distance service with First Class and catering provision for more than two thirds of the journey length, 2+2 Standard seating, 2+1 First seating IR (InterRegional) - long distance service which may lack some of the IC features, but still has 2+2 in Standard - I'm thinking of the Liverpool to Norwich as an example, or some TPE services, or the LNR Crewes RE (RegionalExpress) - other semifast services L (Local) - other local or commuter services that stop at all or most* stations
and perhaps
M (Metro) - urban, frequent (min 2tph) all stations services in clockface timetables, may not have toilets
* e.g. I would have MKC-Euston stoppers as R despite them not going up the DC line and not serving Wembley - in the eyes of most they're the stopper.
You could call them what you liked, but I do think the idea of a consistent brand encompassing what a train is (without getting too picky and ending up like India with a huge number of classifications and classes) is a good thing and exists in most countries.
That’s basically the Swiss system: IC, IR, RE, R and S categories. There’s a large number of services here that are no longer IC as the quality has declined: XC (arguably that’s even RE), GWR and EMR all fail to meet the standard, so should be IR.
Which in our area would rule out a large numbers of XC services as well as most TPE services between Leeds and Manchester. Maybe a sardine tin symbol in timetable
Until we get away from the barely adequate approach to rolling stock provision any further segregation of services is impossible. On routes like TPE which tend to be trying to do several of the roles I have often thought there would some benefit in having a mix of stock type in the same unit, with maybe Inter City end door carriages at either end, and the rest in a doors at 1/3rds layout with more standing space, and maybe supplemented with tip up seats for the short distance passengers. Allocated reserved seats for longer journeys in the IC carriages, regular travellers would soon get the hang of it, and signage to back it up. But as a starting point it needs a train with enough capacity.
I have often thought there would some benefit in having a mix of stock type in the same unit, with maybe Inter City end door carriages at either end, and the rest in a doors at 1/3rds layout with more standing space, and maybe supplemented with tip up seats for the short distance passengers. Allocated reserved seats for longer journeys in the IC carriages, regular travellers would soon get the hang of it, and signage to back it up.
That’s basically the Swiss system: IC, IR, RE, R and S categories. There’s a large number of services here that are no longer IC as the quality has declined: XC (arguably that’s even RE), GWR and EMR all fail to meet the standard, so should be IR.
Why do you say that GWR / EMR Intercity are not of Intercity standard?
There is a huge difference between the GWR Intercity Express Trains / EMR Intercity routes with the routes which should be IR, for example, Liverpool - Norwich or Waterloo - Exeter or Waterloo - Weymouth.
Also what is the definition between R and S? Is Brighton - Seaford R or S? Is Brighton - Worthing R or S? Is Brighton - Hove R or S? Is London Bridge - Tattenham Corner, which run fast to Norwood Junction, an RE where a stopper calling everywhere via Sydenham on the exact same route an S?
Having a 5-tier system is probably too much and I think a 3-tier system is already enough to convey the expected standard of the rolling stock: long-distance, regional and suburban, regardless of the actual distance and speed the service is:
Long distance: Have 2+1 first class, have proper seat reservations, have catering.
Regional: Have none of the above long-distance features, but with capacity mainly from seats rather than standing space, may have first class but just a better 2+2 seat (so a London - Weymouth 444 is categorised as regional despite operating a long-distance service)
Suburban: London Overground / Elizabeth line like service designed for short-distance standing passengers, may not even have toilets on board (so a Bedford - Brighton 700 is promoted as a "suburban train" despite the journey length, as the 700 is clearly a suburban stock; while a Gatwick Express 387 between London - Brighton is a "regional train").
Hardly the case - apart from the label InterCity/IC which we invented - most other countries had had some sort of system for decades, often with differential fares (which disappeared in the UK a century ago, Pullmans apart).
I agree it's a shame that the IC label has been dropped in the UK, but I'm not convinced about more national labels - the likes of RE/RB/S aren't consistently applied elsewhere.
Hardly the case - apart from the label InterCity/IC which we invented - most other countries had had some sort of system for decades, often with differential fares (which disappeared in the UK a century ago, Pullmans apart).
I agree it's a shame that the IC label has been dropped in the UK, but I'm not convinced about more national labels - the likes of RE/RB/S aren't consistently applied elsewhere.
Here in Finland, we have a five-tier system that works perfectly well (although we only have one or two types of train for each tier):
S = Pendolino (originally called S220)
IC = InterCity
P or PYO = night train (pikayöjuna)
H = regional train (infrequent Class 153 equivalents)
HL = commuter train (frequent electric sets)
This system could easily be applied to the UK, even if just for certain TOCs as a start. SE and EMR already do do this to some extent - the former has Metro, Mainline and Highspeed, whereas the latter has Connect, InterCity and Regional.
I think a good start would be to abandon counted seats (no specific seat) for Advance tickets, and make it clear at booking stage. Especially where part of a journey is allocated a seat, should be all or none.
How do you propose that yield management is done on trains which do not have seat-specific reservations. Such a change would lead to fare increases for many who are prepared to use quieter trains.
most other countries had had some sort of system for decades, often with differential fares (which disappeared in the UK a century ago, Pullmans apart).
How do you propose that yield management is done on trains which do not have seat-specific reservations. Such a change would lead to fare increases for many who are prepared to use quieter trains.
Yield management is not a benefit on regional trains. Northern's setup in particular is a joke and only intended to pinch ORCATS money from TPE. Almost no other country does it - regional trains are more usually fixed-fare with no reservations of any kind. You don't manage yield in the same way as you do on the InterCity fixed-formation single sets, you instead manage train lengths to demand by using multiple sets of short units - Chiltern are perhaps the masters of this (most of the time).
I therefore agree with the OP's premise that we should remove all those false "reservable" flags from all our regional trains and return to the idea that Advances are sold only on trains where specific seats can be reserved, that is trains under the InterCity or InterRegional category above.
We cannot approach reform with a view of "nobody can pay more" as that's impossible. Changing from one model to another by necessity advantages some and disadvantages others. Even if nobody pays a higher fare that means taxpayers pay the shortfall. Making it revenue neutral and considering who may fall through the gaps are the fair ways to approach such a thing.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If using German criteria Seaford is R, as are most British branch lines.
S means the following:
- High frequency (>=2tph)
- "im Takt", i.e. clockface, integrated timetabling
- Usually in an urban transport authority (Verkehrsverbund) area
- Usually low comfort, no toilets as they are intended for very short journeys
The Swiss model is less clear, as they use S for branch lines, but only where they are part of a local integrated timetable system with fully regularised timetabling. I'm open on that purpose, but Seaford still wouldn't come under it, though stuff like the "Lancashire triangle" might.
Just like the German AST (Anruf-Sammel-Taxi) can actually be used in the UK (Arranged Shared Taxi), you could just about get away with actually using S by ascribing a load of terms to it, e.g. "expresS your way around the city". But "Metro" might work better.
How do you propose that yield management is done on trains which do not have seat-specific reservations. Such a change would lead to fare increases for many who are prepared to use quieter trains.
It isn't granular enough though. Moreover, some journeys at peak times can have relatively empty trains, while some journeys at off-peak times have excess demand. Also, the demand differs by day.
Smartcards and surge pricing could deliver an answer admittedly, but I don't think people would like that.
It isn't granular enough though. Moreover, some journeys at peak times can have relatively empty trains, while some journeys at off-peak times have excess demand. Also, the demand differs by day.
Smartcards and surge pricing could deliver an answer admittedly, but I don't think people would like that.
The answer on regional services is to provide adequate capacity. Most journeys are, unlike long distance, essential and time bound, so yield management doesn't have a significant positive effect.
I think they should do what some of the airlines do and under service details mention the type of train, the type being hyperlinked to a page that has details and photographs of what facilities the train has. And have a disclaimer saying something on the lines of "substitutions may occasionally occur".
Doing it that way would have the information easily available for those who want it without forcing those who aren't interested to read it.
