Short intercity trains should be hurled into the sun

dk1 · Tuesday at 18:41

OVS Flatbottom said:
I haven heard't the exact phrase either, but the concept certainly reminds me of Disaster Area...

Yes, quite an over dramatic choice of phrase :lol:

RailUK Forums

alistairlees · Tuesday at 19:33

I always put my sunglasses on when I see an 810 approaching.

NCT · Tuesday at 21:04

quantinghome said:
I don't think that's correct. What other designs of intercity trains have been built for British railways in the past 20 years? The Class 745 (arguments over definitions aside) was a small order, as was the Class 397. Pretty clearly the IET has effectively become the default when ordering new intercity trains.

It was the only new train at the time, but there were plenty of still relatively young Pendolinos and Voyagers/Meridians around. As I said, it was the new kid in town.

Yet this is what most other countries do, and what we have done in the past. There are risks of putting your eggs in one basket, but these are outweighed by the advantages of having a single type of train in terms of economies of scale and ease of operation and maintenance. The classic reference case is Transpennine Express's order of three different train types. Had they gone for a single order of 80Xs they would have been in far better shape. We don't have a very large market for intercity rolling stock and attempting to sustain multiple suppliers means losing economies of scale.

The Class 805 and 807 were ordered after the Auroras and have been in service for a couple of years now. It seems Hitachi can build their standard 80X design fairly effectively, but the bespoke features of the 810 have caused a lot of problems.

As far as I'm aware (though I'm no rolling stock expert), the 810 problems have been having the wrong wire loom length - a basic c0ck-up, and problematic doors and toilets - nothing to do with train / carriage length.

If specifying a modular variation causes a c0co-up, then that manufacturer is incompetent and shouldn't be trusted. It's not the customer's fault.

Other posters have pointed out the very legitimate drawbacks of 26 metre vehicles in terms of seats to door ratios (dwell times), carriage width and needing stiff suspensions to not bust the kinematic envelope.

quantinghome · Tuesday at 22:34

NCT said:
It was the only new train at the time, but there were plenty of still relatively young Pendolinos and Voyagers/Meridians around. As I said, it was the new kid in town.

We're talking about what was available to purchase. I don't think the Pendolino or Voyager/Meridian designs were still available when the IET programme came around.

Bletchleyite · Tuesday at 22:38

NCT said:
Other posters have pointed out the very legitimate drawbacks of 26 metre vehicles in terms of seats to door ratios (dwell times), carriage width and needing stiff suspensions to not bust the kinematic envelope.

It does seem that 24m is a sweet spot for UK loading gauge. Though I'd still not have ordered solely 5 car units for EMR. Trains made of shorter trains with no walk through gangways are a pain, requiring double staffing in most cases. Better, Thameslink and Avanti* style, to have multiple lengths and use that flexibly by way of diagramming and pricing people around where that results in sub optimal lengths by way of Advances.

* OK, the 805s are that, but North Wales is a bit of a specific one, that said I think uniform 7s would have made more sense. Very rarely is a 10 on the Coast itself packed, but a 5 usually is.

TT-ONR-NRN · Tuesday at 23:21

py_megapixel said:
I don't think I understand what you mean, sorry.

The 745's seating areas are separated from the exterior doors by means of an interior door and partition.

The 745s interior doors have been permanently open every time I’ve travelled on them. And I’ve cleared the class, so often enough.

MontyP · Wednesday at 17:55

swt_passenger said:
So what have learnt so far?

1. XC trains are too short. But their fleet size was and is still rigorously controlled by DfT, even though there are unused units of the same class available.

2. EMR trains are too short. Their fleet size was also agreed by DfT.

By the way, how many threads on these subjects have we got now?

3. LNER trains are too short. So they are ordering a micro fleet of longer trains so that they can run more services with doubled-up 5 car units. Who in their right mind thought that putting 5-car services on all-day diagrams to/from Leeds (one of the busiest long distance routes in the country) made sense?

Bletchleyite · Wednesday at 18:01

MontyP said:
3. LNER trains are too short. So they are ordering a micro fleet of longer trains so that they can run more services with doubled-up 5 car units. Who in their right mind thought that putting 5-car services on all-day diagrams to/from Leeds (one of the busiest long distance routes in the country) made sense?

One could almost argue, given how unsuitable 5 car trains are for LNER, for a larger order of 897s and sending the 5s off elsewhere, e.g. XC or TPE (and if the latter, cascading 185s to Northern to replace some 15x). Though there is the complexity of the IET contract to worry about there, sadly.

Though to be fair the fares "trial" does make pricing people off 5s a bit easier.

One could even argue for sending 9s from LNER to GWR and cascading all the 5s to XC, and backfilling with even more 897s. The capacity uplift of even a 5 car 80x from a 4-5 car Voyager is significant. ScotRail could potentially also be interested instead of the broken old tat they're actually getting from EMR.

TastyMaltesers · Thursday at 09:14

Bletchleyite said:
One could even argue for sending 9s from LNER to GWR and cascading all the 5s to XC, and backfilling with even more 897s. The capacity uplift of even a 5 car 80x from a 4-5 car Voyager is significant. ScotRail could potentially also be interested instead of the broken old tat they're actually getting from EMR.

GWR's Camarthen services, among others, would need a rethink if you took away all of their 5 car units.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 09:17

TastyMaltesers said:
GWR's Camarthen services, among others, would need a rethink if you took away all of their 5 car units.

If there are services where portion working is unavoidable due to signal positions (platform lengths can be dealt with by way of ASDO) then a few might need to be retained for those services. Equally one could question whether there is really value in through intercity services that can't even come close to filling a full length train. What worked them in HST days and why can't a full length 80x do it now?

TT-ONR-NRN · Thursday at 09:19

LNER should not have 5 car units.
And if that means not going to certain places once a day that can only take a 5 car, so be it, I'd say.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 09:23

TT-ONR-NRN said:
And if that means not going to certain places once a day that can only take a 5 car, so be it, I'd say.

I do find the ECML and GWML strange in that regard. The WCML mostly doesn't do it (it would be like sending an 805 to Windermere twice a day, say) and it doesn't seem to be a massive problem that it doesn't, plus it keeps the operation simple. The one case where it does, the North Wales Coast, would be far better worked with full length units as when 5s go that way on their own they are invariably very busy. And it was worked by full length HSTs and Mk3 sets in BR days.

It did do it to Shrewsbury but that was binned off and probably rightly so as it made the Birmingham diagrams more complicated. It still does (off the Coast service) to Wrexham but I really question the sense in that.

HamworthyGoods · Thursday at 09:29

Bletchleyite said:
If there are services where portion working is unavoidable due to signal positions (platform lengths can be dealt with by way of ASDO) then a few might need to be retained for those services. Equally one could question whether there is really value in through intercity services that can't even come close to filling a full length train. What worked them in HST days and why can't a full length 80x do it now?

A 9-car 80x is longer than an 8-car HST, and you have to remember many of the HSTs were 7-cars when they started so any spare infrastructure length was eked out when the HSTs were lengthened.

In LHCS days many routes the full set didn’t go to destination, take Cornwall a lot of the train was taken off at Plymouth etc.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 09:36

HamworthyGoods said:
A 9-car 80x is longer than an 8-car HST, and you have to remember many of the HSTs were 7-cars when they started so any spare infrastructure length was eked out when the HSTs were lengthened.

In LHCS days many routes the full set didn’t go to destination, take Cornwall a lot of the train was taken off at Plymouth etc.

The original idea was 10 to Plymouth, 5 beyond, but this was soon binned off as inadequate. Most Penzance trains are 9 these days.

Can a 9 not go to Carmarthen even if you have to use ASDO for half of it? Sometimes signalling is an issue here (e.g. on the Marston Vale) but it's fairly rare.

HamworthyGoods · Thursday at 09:40

Bletchleyite said:
The original idea was 10 to Plymouth, 5 beyond, but this was soon binned off as inadequate. Most Penzance trains are 9 these days.

Can a 9 not go to Carmarthen even if you have to use ASDO for half of it? Sometimes signalling is an issue here (e.g. on the Marston Vale) but it's fairly rare.

No, 9 cars don’t fit behind the starting signals and if you run the train off the former Aberystwyth end of the platform it blocks the barrow crossing which is the only way to get between platforms as there is no footbridge or subway.

You could possibly lengthen at the Aberystwyth end but would mean building a station footbridge.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 09:51

HamworthyGoods said:
No, 9 cars don’t fit behind the starting signals and if you run the train off the former Aberystwyth end of the platform it blocks the barrow crossing which is the only way to get between platforms as there is no footbridge or subway.

You could possibly lengthen at the Aberystwyth end but would mean building a station footbridge.

Doesn't sound like a terrible idea to be honest, certainly better than retaining a 5 car fleet for one service*. Barrow crossings being the only way to cross the line really should have gone out with the ark.

* Oxford services at 5 car are always overcrowded, though really the answer to that is to wire to Oxford so the turnbacks are served by 12 car EMUs.

HamworthyGoods · Thursday at 10:04

Bletchleyite said:
Doesn't sound like a terrible idea to be honest, certainly better than retaining a 5 car fleet for one service*. Barrow crossings being the only way to cross the line really should have gone out with the ark.

* Oxford services at 5 car are always overcrowded, though really the answer to that is to wire to Oxford so the turnbacks are served by 12 car EMUs.

Yes but the railway isn’t sloshing around with cash at present to fund things like this.

If you look at the prime example XC were not able to make a business case to lease all the additional former AWC class 221s and could only take ⅔ of the fleet on and this required no infrastructure investment.

This is no different to BR in the 70s and 80s, batch 2 of the HST order (the Eastern Region order) was for 42 sets, only 32 sets got approved so LHCS had to remain for the York/Hull/Cleethorpes workings).

Later on batch 5 which was supposed to be an extra 7 sets only saw 4 sets being authorised, at this stage BR admitted defeat and decided not to try and order any more.

What the railway thinks is necessary and what the treasury thinks is necessary are often different.

bramling · Thursday at 10:09

Bletchleyite said:
Doesn't sound like a terrible idea to be honest, certainly better than retaining a 5 car fleet for one service*. Barrow crossings being the only way to cross the line really should have gone out with the ark.

In the case of Carmarthen it’s probably the most sensible way of doing things. The barrow crossing crosses a headhunt which nowadays sees virtually zero use.

That said, the arrangements at Carmarthen shouldn’t be dictating the provision for an entire line. The station should really have been remodelled as part of the IET project.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 10:11

bramling said:
That said, the arrangements at Carmarthen shouldn’t be dictating the provision for an entire line. The station should really have been remodelled as part of the IET project.

Or alternatively the service should have been curtailed to Swansea and Carmarthen served by a more frequent, clockface connecting TfW service. Though I appreciate that is a bit political, I do question the value of GWR's odd extensions, and if it was more like the WCML it would just be Plymouth/Penzance, Bristol via Bath and Swansea, twice an hour each.

Indeed in a sensible world that would include the wires going to Swansea and a pure EMU service.

HamworthyGoods · Thursday at 10:12

bramling said:
In the case of Carmarthen it’s probably the most sensible way of doing things. The barrow crossing crosses a headhunt which nowadays sees virtually zero use.

That said, the arrangements at Carmarthen shouldn’t be dictating the provision for an entire line. The station should really have been remodelled as part of the IET project.

Just remember how much GWEP went over budget and had large swathes cut out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:16 ==

Bletchleyite said:
Or alternatively the service should have been curtailed to Swansea and Carmarthen served by a more frequent, clockface connecting TfW service. Though I appreciate that is a bit political, I do question the value of GWR's odd extensions, and if it was more like the WCML it would just be Plymouth/Penzance, Bristol via Bath and Swansea, twice an hour each.

No different to WCML running 5 a day to Holyhead or 2 a day to Blackpool and 1 a day to Wrexham.

Or on ECML running 1 a day to Hull and Inverness, 4 a day to Aberdeen etc.

Limited amounts of direct through services to London usually are political. There’s lots of anomalies around the country whether it be intercity or the odd direct regional train London to Harwich or London to Stratford-upon-Avon etc.

The Summer Saturday workings to West Wales are no different they provide the necessary extra capacity to holiday destinations such as Tenby by providing direct links from Bristol area etc.

bramling · Thursday at 10:24

Bletchleyite said:
Or alternatively the service should have been curtailed to Swansea and Carmarthen served by a more frequent, clockface connecting TfW service. Though I appreciate that is a bit political, I do question the value of GWR's odd extensions, and if it was more like the WCML it would just be Plymouth/Penzance, Bristol via Bath and Swansea, twice an hour each.

Indeed in a sensible world that would include the wires going to Swansea and a pure EMU service.

I’ve never really understood the point of the Carmarthen services, apart from that they exist for political reasons.

The two main places served are Carmarthen and Llanelli, both of which have TfW services which pass through Swansea, albeit that don’t provide a massive level of capacity. Aside from these two the only other significant traffic generator west of Swansea is Tenby, however this still requires a change of train (albeit the GWR Carmarthen services will be freeing up some space between Swansea and Carmarthen on Pembroke Dock services).

It does seem to be a case of do it properly or not at all. Extending one Carmarthen platform at the south end and moving some crossovers isn’t the biggest thing in the world.

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 10:30

bramling said:
I’ve never really understood the point of the Carmarthen services, apart from that they exist for political reasons.

They probably do to be honest, same as Wrexham. Blackpool is generally just because it's "Preston platforms 7 to 11", i.e. you can reverse there without clogging anything up as it's got about twice the platforms it needs, though most of that has now stopped. I suspect the one that does still run would continue and terminate at Preston if for some reason it couldn't go to Blackpool.

Holyhead is a bit different as it has always been part of the core WCML service, and I'd personally do things differently, in that I'd have a two hourly London and a two hourly Cardiff, alternating in a consistent hourly fast* path on the Coast, rather than the messy overlaying of random services at random times of day for each. Then you would have the Manchester (semifast to the Junction, all stations to Holyhead) and the Liverpool (all stations to Llandudno) as the other services, with the Birmingham cut back to Chester. And (back to the main point) I'd have it full length as it's generally pretty busy (and price people onto it at times of day when it's not).

* Probably Chester, Flint, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Junction, Bangor, Holyhead.

stevieinselby · 2026-09-04T10:49:00+0100

HamworthyGoods said:
No different to WCML running 5 a day to Holyhead or 2 a day to Blackpool and 1 a day to Wrexham.

Or on ECML running 1 a day to Hull and Inverness, 4 a day to Aberdeen etc.

Limited amounts of direct through services to London usually are political. There’s lots of anomalies around the country whether it be intercity or the odd direct regional train London to Harwich or London to Stratford-upon-Avon etc.

The Summer Saturday workings to West Wales are no different they provide the necessary extra capacity to holiday destinations such as Tenby by providing direct links from Bristol area etc.

Apart from the odd IC services to Wrexham and maybe Harrogate and Skipton, other infrequent extensions on LNER and AWC serve significantly bigger populations than the combined total of Llanelli, Burry Port and Carmarthen (about 75k), and often over much longer distances.

I'm not absolutely wedded to having LNER run through to Aberdeen or Inverness – and if the through services were replaced with regular intercity-standard express services to Edinburgh running every hour from Inverness and probably every half-hour from Aberdeen, I wouldn't object to the through services being cut – but I can see a lot more justification for those than for the extension to Carmarthen.

I can also see a good reason for running summer Saturday specials to places like Pembroke and Newquay, where there is a particular spike in demand for leisure travel that brings in large numbers of long-distance passengers that would struggle to be accommodated on the local network. I would put those in a different category from infrequent year-round extensions that would be better served by an improved local service.

Mitchell Hurd · 2026-09-04T12:52:20+0100

Harpo said:
What defines InterCity for me is a quality of environment that suits a long distance journey and trumps travelling by car. Linespeed is irrelevant.

I certainly don’t want to be exposed to the elements at every station stop in suburban train style, something which makes the current 745/755 internal layout ‘regional’ in my eyes.

Identical to the door layouts of some Mark 1 and early Mark 2 loco-hauled coaches.

Harpo · 2026-09-04T21:27:19+0100

Mitchell Hurd said:
Identical to the door layouts of some Mark 1 and early Mark 2 loco-hauled coaches.

Yes. TSOs. Luckily very long banished on IC services. Before they went, quite a few were modified by blocking the door off with a luggage rack.

Merle Haggard · 2026-09-04T21:33:47+0100

Mitchell Hurd said:
Identical to the door layouts of some Mark 1 and early Mark 2 loco-hauled coaches.

The first Mk1 opens (FO and TT0) didn't have a vestibule and doors in the middle of the coach, but this feature was included in later builds from new, and cut into those not so fitted.

The reason was that there was a spate of interior fires sometimes with fatal results partly because of the lack of available exits. Although in fairness a particularly serious one occurred on a Thomson designed twin with only one external door in one of the pair.

Bill57p9 · 2026-09-04T23:11:25+0100

stevieinselby said:
I'm not absolutely wedded to having LNER run through to Aberdeen or Inverness – and if the through services were replaced with regular intercity-standard express services to Edinburgh running every hour from Inverness and probably every half-hour from Aberdeen, I wouldn't object to the through services being cut – but I can see a lot more justification for those than for the extension to Carmarthen.

Personally I can see the argument for the through ECML Inverness service being rather marginal, however the Aberdeen extensions are pretty busy and operate instead of the usual ScotRail nearly clockface semi fasts between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. So rather than consider whether the exceptions are worth it, might there be an argument to consider making ECML Aberdeen - Kings Cross an hourly clockface norm?
Currently we have two Intercity operators providing separate fleets and staff meeting end on for what could be a through service. And a through service is much more appealing to the vast majority of travellers.
About the only practical downsides I can think of would be the need for these ECML services to be full bi-mode, and the need to use through platforms at Waverley.

HamworthyGoods · 2026-09-04T23:46:26+0100

Harpo said:
What defines InterCity for me is a quality of environment that suits a long distance journey and trumps travelling by car. Linespeed is irrelevant.

I certainly don’t want to be exposed to the elements at every station stop in suburban train style, something which makes the current 745/755 internal layout ‘regional’ in my eyes.

How can you have level boarding without central boarding? Bogies generally have to go at the ends of vehicles, you can’t have level boarding and end doors.

Cars aren’t public transport, public transport now has a requirement to be accessible for all.

That’s why all modern IC stock whether it be ÖBB Railjet 2s, TGVs or SBB Giruno have centre vehicle doors.

Short intercity trains should be hurled into the sun

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member