Limited stop trains

[tbtc]

I do think there is a big argument on intercity services with quite frequent stops for putting all the longer distance passengers in certain carriages. It is not exactly difficult to achieve. Just programme the booking engines to do this. It would make a difference to people’s experience. There are lots of potential benefits including,

Configuring the longer distance carriages with a bit more luggage space.

Putting the longer distance carriages at the end so they receive less through traffic. They would also receive less general shuffling which is annoying if you are trying to settle in for a long journey. Rail is competing with cars where people are used to having their own space. People don’t get in and get out every 20 mins.

Offering the potential to configure the other carriages a bit differently. Maybe a bit more standing space. Maybe even seats that fold back outside peaks to allow more bikes, pushchairs etc. Also configuring to speed up boarding and alighting.

I have used transpennine since birth and it has always cried out for this sort of solution. There is a real mix of flows. I would as often get the train from Huddersfield to Leeds (20mins) as Leeds to Manchester (1 hour) as Leeds to Liverpool (2 hours ish). On the Huddersfield to Leeds run you were often stood up anyway and I didn’t care that much at busy times. Leeds to Liverpool might be a work trip where I hoped to get a good hour and a bit of laptop time in.

I would personally make the TP trains 6 coaches or more. End carriages 1st and long distance. Middle commuter format. Middles tend to be unreserved. Ends tend to be reserved. At least 2 carriages always fully unreserved.

Instead you have that moment at Leeds where you look through the window of the incoming train to see a forest of reservation slips and then get ready to practice your gymnastics stepping over bags in the vestibule that would make much better standing space.

It really is not rocket science, should be the norm on all Cross Country and TPE and should have been the norm for years.

It also doesn’t need to be an exact science. If most of the thing it set out like this, you get most of the benefits.

It sounds a good idea in theory - I'd prefer a journey without disruption - who wouldn't

But, look at it another way.

Let's say that at the moment you might have fifty people getting off/on an InterCity service at medium sized station (and over a hundred at a major station like New Street) - say those are spread between ten doors on a five coach Voyager, that's five per door at a medium sized station (at least double that at New Street) - but if those passengers are only using half the doors (because the remainder of the train is being reserved for longer distance passengers) then that's going to mean a longer dwell time since the passengers are concentrated at fewer doors

Some of the longer distance passengers might still be using the "long distance" coach(es), and therefore using those doors, but then that'd still mean disruption to people wanting a quiet journey

So IMHO it'd only really work on InterCity flows where a significant amount of the passenger flow is end-to-end, maybe London to Leeds?

(there other problem is that people seem to want to segregate passengers into lots of different pigeon holes - or rather the preferences/prejudices of certain posters - do you want a quiet coach/ a table/ an unrestricted window view/ close to the buffet etc etc - maybe even with different seating types to suit the prejudices of some of the seat obsessives - how many carriages will we need to accommodate all of these separate groups?)

Sarcasm here isn't helpful. Not everyone likes schoolchildren jumping around and shouting, or loud and tipsy passengers stumbling in front of them

I'm not sure that putting the long distance and short distance passengers in different carriages will mean you don't need to deal with school children/ drunks - in fact a carriage for long distance passengers where the doors aren't opening at intermediate stations might encourage people to treat it more like a creche (since there's no need to keep your kids in their seats to deal with the churn of people at stops) - similar with drunks

(* - or even drunk school children in certain places)

 

[dciuk]

Could there ever be scope for 2tph fast? Say a Paignton service which made more Devon stops like Tiverton and Totnes. And the re-openings. Enabling a faster Plymouth/Cornwall. But I can't see much beyond that - and even 2tph is not a lot. The Exeter semi-fast would benefit a little. More from wires though. And it's a long route overall to upgrade for a low frequency.

A Paddington (or cross country) to Paignton service would struggle to call at Totnes, unless of course the Dawlish Route gets abandoned for a replacement route via Tavistock and Okehampton, but this is not the thread to go into why that would be a very bad idea!

 

[Shrop]

So does every train of any distance get rampant schoolkids and drunks guaranteed?

Clearly not, but a lot of car drivers who have experienced such behaviour are once bitten twice shy, or choose not to use the train again at all.

Would you rather the kids get taken by car? Would you prefer drunk people to drive?

Far too many kids get taken by car, but longer distance trains not stopping so often would be less likely to carry them. As for drunk driving, that's a provocative way to phrase the question, I'm just pointing out that such passengers do exist and that they do deter some other passengers from rail travel.

I work all kinds of services from suburban stoppers to semi fasts with stops averaging every 10 minutes and can say that very few trains contain the above the majority of the time.

I completely agree, but that's digressing.

I’m sorry but this whole thread seems like your personal preference should be mandatory for any train over a certain distance (which appears to be a non stop train from your origin to destination with nobody on board but silent people who don’t ever move) rather than what is better for the majority (a regular service with good connectivity).

Personal preference? Far from it, which you would hopefully understand if you'd read some of my other comments. I'm happy to clarify if you want to ask any direct questions.

 

[Bald Rick]

Being a long distance rail traveller for some time, I can honestly say that it really doesn’t bother me in the slightest if people move around the carriage when boarding and alighting, going to the loo / buffet / whatever. If that is the reason that some people choosing another mode, then I don’t know what to say.

 

[irish_rail]

Sarcasm here isn't helpful. Not everyone likes schoolchildren jumping around and shouting, or loud and tipsy passengers stumbling in front of them, and wondering might disrupt their journey at any of the next several stops (only examples, there are more). That's why a lot of people would prefer to take their cars, even in the sure knowledge of road delays. The one plus of not encouraging rail travel is that it would be unlikely to cope with more passengers anyway. Hmm, cue the comments from those who will cite some less well loaded trains ...

Completely agree, and plenty of non enthusiasts would agree too. Constantly stopping and swathes of people getting on and off, fannying around moving luggage about ,up and down, especially annoying if I am seated in the aisle seat and keep getting knocked. On my patch, that's why I love travelling between Taunton and Reading, on a fast, knowing for an hour and a quarter ill be in peace!