Are some trains too long?

[pokemonsuper9]

However, it appears that tacking a 2-car DMU on the end of a 2-car service is frequently done up North, if there are any working ones available!

Not really, most of them are diagrammed for 4 carriages and short formed to 2 due due stock unavailability, I don't see many long forms.

 

[AM9]

Not really, most of them are diagrammed for 4 carriages and short formed to 2 due due stock unavailability, I don't see many long forms.

Going by some posts here for a long time, I get the impression that the running of just 2 cars is common enough to become the norm. It is a sad fact that the flexibility of 2 & 3-car DMUs gives as much an opportunity to shorten trains as lengthen them often results in the cheaper option being chosen by the operator.
This is less prevalent with EMUs which are normally configured as 3-cars as a minimum. On high density routes there is an increasing tendency to deploy full length units, which also benefit from higher reliability in service anyway.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Let's imagine a consist of a 466 at the front and a 465 behind. When going into Victoria or Charing Cross, uncouple the 466 at the front and let the driver make it go towards a platform. Have someone else sitting in the 465's seat to drive it towards a different platform. This ingenious solution allows for 4 "front 2" coaches from a single train.

Hahaha!

Charing Cross does though have a more sensible possible solution: Build a decent connection from the middle of the platforms to Embankment tube station. Then passengers will naturally spread out more due to wanting different exits.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Not really, most of them are diagrammed for 4 carriages and short formed to 2 due due stock unavailability, I don't see many long forms.

Was pretty standard, not long ago, to be stood on a packed platform at Lime Street and witness a single 142 set turn up.
Can you imagine that happening in any of the big London stations?

 

[JamesT]

Was pretty standard, not long ago, to be stood on a packed platform at Lime Street and witness a single 142 set turn up.
Can you imagine that happening in any of the big London stations?

It wasn’t that long ago that 2/3 car turbos would be frequently running in and out of Paddington. They still do out of Marylebone, though perhaps that’s not a ‘big’ station?

 

[frankmoh]

Hahaha!

Charing Cross does though have a more sensible possible solution: Build a decent connection from the middle of the platforms to Embankment tube station. Then passengers will naturally spread out more due to wanting different exits.

There is the exits on the stairs that I never see used anymore (fire exit sign so maybe you aren't even allowed to use it normally anymore?)

Perhaps if they incentivised this them everyone would use carriages 4,5 and 6.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

It wasn’t that long ago that 2/3 car turbos would be frequently running in and out of Paddington. They still do out of Marylebone, though perhaps that’s not a ‘big’ station?

Charing Cross has 6 platforms too, as does the Southern side of London Bridge (if we are only using termini). In that case Waterloo East is the smallest London "Terminal".

 

[FrontSideBus]

It wasn’t that long ago that 2/3 car turbos would be frequently running in and out of Paddington. They still do out of Marylebone, though perhaps that’s not a ‘big’ station?

A two coach turbo is an absolute luxury compared with a pacer

 

[frankmoh]

A two coach turbo is an absolute luxury compared with a pacer

Good to know that people don't hate the Turbos as much as the DC Networkers. Chiltern keeps their 165s in top condition, especially compared to the sorry state of SE's 465s.

Also it's strange to me that GWR operated Pacers. Dunno why.

 

[AM9]

Can you imagine that happening in any of the big London stations?

Can you imagine London having so few passengers to justify wasting* a significant number of critical paths with such low capacity stock.
* Of course there are occasions when disruption and problems with certain types of stock force a 4-car EMU to be deployed instead of no train!

 

[Zomboid]

I've had a 3 car 159 on the 1720 Waterloo to Exeter in the past, though it was highly unusual. During disruption all bets are off.

The full to bursting 165 out of Marylebone isn't that unusual, especially on the last train of the day.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

If you walk to the front of the train, no matter what Stansted Express train you are on, the busiest of busy, you will always have a few seats to yourself.

In the old days when everyone used twitter I would laugh at the comments from those on my train who were going to contact their MP because the train was dangerously overcrowded. It was their own fault!

I explain it as people just don’t think.
If you’re averse to walking along the platform with your luggage, so you board the train (Stansted Express) at the first carriage with empty seats, what happens when you get to Stansted? You have to walk along the platform anyway, to where the barriers are! Same in the reverse direction.
Do the walk at the boarding station, and you’re in pole position for a quick exit at the arrival station.

 

[frankmoh]

Perhaps the issues of only the front carriage being full would be solved by having more than one exit per platform... just a hunch.

 

[saismee]

Perhaps the issues of only the front carriage being full would be solved by having more than one exit per platform... just a hunch.

Where? There isn't anywhere to put another exit at Liverpool Street, especially if people are coming from the tube.

 

[Krokodil]

Can you imagine London having so few passengers to justify wasting* a significant number of critical paths with such low capacity stock.

It's not that the passengers are few enough for a two car to be sufficient, it's that this is what people are forced to squeeze into (or stand on the platform watching helplessly while unable to board, how often does that happen in London with the next train an hour away?). More people would travel if they weren't forced to wedge into a two car DMU. It wasn't that long ago that Manchester Airport to Blackpool services would have been so formed (possibly with a dreaded 142), now they are six car EMUs and are well-loaded. In East Anglia services that were once single 153s are now operated by FLIRTs with twice the capacity, resulting in a growth in patronage.

 

[Killingworth]

It's not that the passengers are few enough for a two car to be sufficient, it's that this is what people are forced to squeeze into (or stand on the platform watching helplessly while unable to board, how often does that happen in London with the next train an hour away?). More people would travel if they weren't forced to wedge into a two car DMU. It wasn't that long ago that Manchester Airport to Blackpool services would have been so formed (possibly with a dreaded 142), now they are six car EMUs and are well-loaded. In East Anglia services that were once single 153s are now operated by FLIRTs with twice the capacity, resulting in a growth in patronage.

Similar effect on stopping services between Sheffield and Manchester. Now 3 car 195s instead of 2 car Pacers = big uplift in passenger numbers.

Northern's 195 come in 2 or 3 car combinations. Their next orders are not expected to include 2 car units.

 

[Trainbike46]

It's not that the passengers are few enough for a two car to be sufficient, it's that this is what people are forced to squeeze into (or stand on the platform watching helplessly while unable to board, how often does that happen in London with the next train an hour away?). More people would travel if they weren't forced to wedge into a two car DMU. It wasn't that long ago that Manchester Airport to Blackpool services would have been so formed (possibly with a dreaded 142), now they are six car EMUs and are well-loaded. In East Anglia services that were once single 153s are now operated by FLIRTs with twice the capacity, resulting in a growth in patronage.

Twice the capacity?

The 153s had somewhere between 59 and 75 seats according to wikipedia, and only the 59-seat version met PRM requirements.

The FLIRTs have 202+27=229 (4-car) or 144+23=167 seats (3-car).

so that is more like triple to quadruple the capacity, and it is needed on the routes now.

More capacity leads to more passengers, especially when combined with other improvements, like the increased reliability and comfort at GA.

EDIT: GA didn't just increase the seats per train, but also the total number of trains in the regional fleet

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Twice the capacity?

The 153s had somewhere between 59 and 75 seats according to wikipedia, and only the 59-seat version met PRM requirements.

The FLIRTs have 202+27=229 (4-car) or 144+23=167 seats (3-car).

so that is more like triple to quadruple the capacity, and it is needed on the routes now.

More capacity leads to more passengers, especially when combined with other improvements, like the increased reliability and comfort at GA.

EDIT: GA didn't just increase the seats per train, but also the total number of trains in the regional fleet

It proves the point though that provide the capacity so it's comfortable (no one likes squeezing on a crowded train) and passengers will come. I don't really see the cost of an extra carriage or 2 running around empty being so significant compared to it offering comfort and the income when it is used.