Which would be better? (Third class travel)

[northwichcat]

Which of the above options would be better for operators using Pacers and Sprinters on the same route?

"Offer both third class and second class accommodation" could mean certain peak time services operated using Sprinters are shown as 'second class only' and third class tickets aren't accepted while on other routes which usually see 4 car operation it could mean every service sees a Pacer+Sprinter combination.

EDIT: This poll assumes 3 classes of accommodation on Intercity trains goes ahead, which is something that has been discussed at length in other threads. Hence, why there is no 'do nothing' option.

 

[ainsworth74]

EDIT: the poll question should really said 'better' not 'easier'

Fixed

 

[eastwestdivide]

Missing option: none of the above.

 

[northwichcat]

Missing option: none of the above.

Destroying Pacers and offering 2+2 seating on every train would be a better option but it would be an expensive option.

 

[starrymarkb]

I can't see 3 class working on the Classic lines but I can certainly see three class services on 400m HS2 services - for example - Budget (Think Ouigo/Megatrain - online only, limited luggage, booked through dedicated site, point to point only), Standard (as now - mix of advance/flexible, integrated into national ticketing - suspect reservations compulsory up to 10 mins prior to departure), First (again mix of advance/flexible with reservations closer to departure)

 

[northwichcat]

I can't see 3 class working on the Classic lines but I can certainly see three class services on 400m HS2 services - for example - Budget (Think Ouigo/Megatrain - online only, limited luggage, booked through dedicated site, point to point only), Standard (as now - mix of advance/flexible, integrated into national ticketing - suspect reservations compulsory up to 10 mins prior to departure), First (again mix of advance/flexible with reservations closer to departure)

The issue you could then have is Budget on a Pendolino or IEP could be better than the current Standard on a commuter train for the same journey so for some journeys paying less could give better quality or do you class all commuter trains as Budget?

 

[eastwestdivide]

Destroying Pacers and offering 2+2 seating on every train would be a better option but it would be an expensive option.

So would introducing a third class of travel and ensuring the right level of accommodation was provided on every service.
Under the two options currently offered, would third class fares be reduced compared to standard fares now, or would second/standard go up? (revenue abstraction or imposed fare rise?)
Way too much complexity to solve an almost non-existent problem I think. In terms of accommodation offered to the passenger, there's not a lot of difference between the two train types. I'd even venture that some Pacers offer a better environment than some Sprinters.

Hang on a minute, have you just changed the wording of the question?

 

[northwichcat]

In terms of accommodation offered to the passenger, there's not a lot of difference between the two train types. I'd even venture that some Pacers offer a better environment than some Sprinters.

I was thinking more like:

Second class (FGW 150): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FGW_Class_150.JPG

Third class (Northern 142): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/142009_Interior.JPG

Can you really claim these are both 'standard' given people complain about 2+2 seating in First Class not being proper First Class?

Hang on a minute, have you just changed the wording of the question?

It was changed about 50 minutes ago, before you submitted your original post. If you read the bottom line of the OP plus ainsworth74's post then it confirms what was changed and when.

 

[eastwestdivide]

I was thinking more like:

Second class (FGW 150): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FGW_Class_150.JPG

Third class (Northern 142): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/142009_Interior.JPG

Can you really claim these are both 'standard' given people complain about 2+2 seating in First Class not being proper First Class?



It was changed about 50 minutes ago, before you submitted your original post. If you read the bottom line of the OP plus ainsworth74's post then it confirms what was changed and when.

OK, sorry, I meant have you changed the wording of the two options.

On the two illustrations, it's easy to claim they're both 'standard' because that's what they are.
Yes, standard varies from train to train, but in order to deal with that, I don't think we need a complicated fare structure, the complications for diagramming, and the passenger confusion that would result.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Class 142 Pacer units offer the lowest possible passenger comfort available, coupled to the lack of suitable train bogies, poor toilet facilities and outdated ingress and egress access and should only bear a cheap pricing strategy to reflect this on the routes where this type of traction power is offered.

As you will see, my views on these units have not changed...

 

[northwichcat]

OK, sorry, I meant have you changed the wording of the two options.

Well the answer to that is no.

On the two illustrations, it's easy to claim they're both 'standard' because that's what they are.
Yes, standard varies from train to train, but in order to deal with that, I don't think we need a complicated fare structure, the complications for diagramming, and the passenger confusion that would result.

But if you have first, second and third on the Intercity trains what do you do about 'standard' on commuter trains? Third on the Intercity train could be better accommodation than Standard on the Commuter train so saying the commuter train is third class only would be more logical than standard class only. If Northern put a 156 on a service which is advertised as 'third class only' then people won't complain that it's too good to be 3rd class but if they put a Merseytravel Pacer on a 'second class only' service then people will complain.

I'm not saying you need to have all train classes available on a service but you need to advertise which one(s) you do have. Saying the local trains would remain as 'Standard' only would complicate things further as it would mean for journeys like Macclesfield to Manchester you'd have First, Second, Third and Standard.

 

[eastwestdivide]

OK my mistake on the wording.

But you don't have three classes on intercity.
You wouldn't expect to find the same accommodation on intercity and commuter trains anyway, so the comparison doesn't really work for me.
I don't really get where you're going with this, but my general point is that any increase of the number of classes available on commuter trains is to me a bad idea for a number of reasons (outlined above).

Anyway, work to do now, so won't be back for a while.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Is this really much of a problem? There's too much variety in stock and seating comfort without resorting to subjective interpretations of what constitutes first, second and 'third class' (is this a return to the 1800s?)

Just have first class as the usual flexible reservations, exclusive departure lounges, on-board treats etc, and standard class as - well - basically everything else.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the whole thing would add too much complication.

Perhaps some rural/local routes might justify a 1'st class section in the same way that TPE services did, but by and large, the current standard class offers an amount of operating flexibility that having to match different unit configurations with different timetable allocations would be very problematic.

A better strategy would be to either replace 3+2 seating on pacers with 2+2, or permanently double up those units (which are generally more bearable with more space).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The issue you could then have is Budget on a Pendolino or IEP could be better than the current Standard on a commuter train for the same journey so for some journeys paying less could give better quality or do you class all commuter trains as Budget?

I'm not sure there are that many occasions where an InterCity service directly competes with local trains in this way. However, the stopper would probably need to be brought in to lone with the budget offering fare wise.

 

[David Barrett]

The current two classes are enough, more than enough in some cases.

 

[tbtc]

Is this really much of a problem? There's too much variety in stock and seating comfort without resorting to subjective interpretations of what constitutes first, second and 'third class' (is this a return to the 1800s?)

No, but it gives people another opportunity to complain about the quality of seats on Pacers.

Other than that, the idea of splitting a 30m DMU into two different "classes"... not convinced!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No, but it gives people another opportunity to complain about the quality of seats on Pacers.

There are different styles of seating in the Pacer classes. With regard to the "bus-style" seating with chrome hand-grips that is found in some, I will respond with the fact a large majority of buses now seem to have far more modern bus seating for their travelling passengers and I do wonder why the archaic bus seating still in the Pacer fleet has not been thought of as in need of replacement with more modern seating units.

 

[Beveridges]

The difference between a 156 and 142 is easily large enough to justify having a second and third class.

 

[tbtc]

There are different styles of seating in the Pacer classes. With regard to the "bus-style" seating with chrome hand-grips that is found in some, I will respond with the fact a large majority of buses now seem to have far more modern bus seating for their travelling passengers and I do wonder why the archaic bus seating still in the Pacer fleet has not been thought of as in need of replacement with more modern seating units.

I agree that your average modern bus provides a much better internal atmosphere than a "bus seated" train does.

However, where will the OP's idea end up? Different classes of ticket for a 2+2 seated train to a 3+2? What about those with both types of seat in Standard Class (like 377s?)?

 

[northwichcat]

However, where will the OP's idea end up? Different classes of ticket for a 2+2 seated train to a 3+2? What about those with both types of seat in Standard Class (like 377s?)?

I think it should depend on what local demand is. If first, second and third class can be justified then divide up standard. Otherwise redefine standard as third class and then see the 2+2 area with tables as like a declassified second class section like we used to have declassified first on the Northern 180s.

Personally I think second class should require at least fold down tables at every seat, armrests and an on-board toilet rather than just 2+2 seating, making things like the LO 172s and Merseyrail trains the high end of third class rather than second class.

 

[Golden Gripper]

I think there are enough problems with different classes as it is.

Firstly an additional class would complicate operations, especially if you were to call pacers 'third' and sprinters 'second'. Northern in particular use them interchangably. On Inter City there is already a problem with business services being short of first, but off peak being short of standard. This would also be a problem on other services. Third, how many 'second' do you have in relation to 'third' and would it be the same for every line (for instance Shrewsbury - Aberystwyth compared to Machynlleth - Pwllhelli) which would make operations impossible.

Someone queried where Inter City was in competition with local services. Where do you start: Wilmslow, Macclesfield and Stockport to Manchester, Bath to Bristol, Runcorn to Liverpool, Stevenage to Kings Cross, Reading to Paddington. I won't go on, you can do it for yourself.

 

[chris89]

No, but it gives people another opportunity to complain about the quality of seats on Pacers.

Or just pacers in general. In which many more lines, most likely would have gone if it wasn't for them. Yes seating on some pacers is not good, being the older bus style, yet modern bus seats aren't great either.

However, where will the OP's idea end up? Different classes of ticket for a 2+2 seated train to a 3+2? What about those with both types of seat in Standard Class (like 377s?)?

Ditto as well, Other examples would be 334s, 320s, 318s, 323s, 350/2s etc. Unsure of other operators of the 321s etc, as only had experience with FSR units.


Sadly the poll is rather biased as no vote for either option/ keep to the same system as currently used. No need to add a third class for rail travel, it will make it even more confusing for a majority of people who travel by rail and how would you enforce it + all the extra added costs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, seating on some Pacers is not good, being the older bus style, yet modern bus seats aren't great either.

Most modern bus seats are more reflective of modern ergonomic seating styles than those with the arcane bus seating found in some of the Pacer fleet.

 

[Moonshot]

Most modern bus seats are more reflective of modern ergonomic seating styles than those with the arcane bus seating found in some of the Pacer fleet.

Modern bus seats are dire.......

 

[ffm]

While Pacers are hideous and should present a reason for a lower fare, the principle is unworkable and therefore let's move on. Most routes in the North East (Newcastle being THE North East area) have Pacers and Sprinters, with no rhyme, not reason, for which service gets which. So you could not price accordingly. If the route was pure Pacer maybe, but even then why? The seats in a SWT 455 compare very poorly with an ex-Arriva Northern 156, which compares poorly with a ScotRail 158. Pricing by accommodation and train is just impossible and, frankly, ludicrous.

 

[starrymarkb]

The issue you could then have is Budget on a Pendolino or IEP could be better than the current Standard on a commuter train for the same journey so for some journeys paying less could give better quality or do you class all commuter trains as Budget?

I was meaning on HS2, it wouldn't really apply to the classic lines. My thinking is Budget being more like iDTGV or Ouigo to attract budget conscious travelers with very simple online Advance only Point to Point Ticketing with Print at Home being mandatory.

With iDTGV some TGVs can have 6 classes across a double set (One set has standard 1st and 2nd class with normal ticketing and the other has iDZap (aka loud) and iDZen (aka Quiet) both in 1st/2nd with online print at home only)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouigo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDTGV

 

[northwichcat]

While Pacers are hideous and should present a reason for a lower fare, the principle is unworkable and therefore let's move on. Most routes in the North East (Newcastle being THE North East area) have Pacers and Sprinters, with no rhyme, not reason, for which service gets which. So you could not price accordingly. If the route was pure Pacer maybe, but even then why? The seats in a SWT 455 compare very poorly with an ex-Arriva Northern 156, which compares poorly with a ScotRail 158. Pricing by accommodation and train is just impossible and, frankly, ludicrous.

The problem is if your Intercity train has 1st, 2nd and 3rd class (as proposed) then your regional/local train with 1 class of travel needs to be either 2nd or 3rd. If you take what I proposed earlier as a minimum standard for 2nd class requiring 2+2 seating, tables, armrests and an on-board toilet then the SWT 455 accommodation you describe would have to be 3rd class. If a route has a mix of 142s and 156s then they can either say it's a 3rd class only route, then whichever unit operates the service it meets the requirements for 3rd class. Alternatively, they could do like Renfe do with routes which get both Intercity and MD and offer a cheap ticket restricted to certain services (Turista valid only on MD services in the case of Renfe) or a more expensive ticket that's valid on any service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sadly the poll is rather biased as no vote for either option/ keep to the same system as currently used. No need to add a third class for rail travel, it will make it even more confusing for a majority of people who travel by rail and how would you enforce it + all the extra added costs.

There is already another thread on the proposals for introducing 3 classes of travel on Intercity train. The poll is assuming that proposal has been given the go-ahead and is asking what should be done about local routes which are 'standard' class only. If you do nothing then you would have 4 classes of accommodation on some routes - first, second, third and standard, with standard likely being poorer than third in some cases e.g. would/could Virgin or CrossCountry really introduce a third class that's worse than the Merseytravel Pacers?

 

[ffm]

And what would the minimum be for 1st class?
PS most 156 seating is airline, without fold down tables, so 3rd class?
Likewise Pacer, with 2+2 seating and a toilet, but no tables is 3rd, but so would the original bus seat variant?
As I said a non-starter.
The Inter-City idea, of a third class, us betwen Second and First, or enhanced First. Yours is simply not well thought through enough, or suitably developed, to be of any consideration, sorry.

 

[Beveridges]

It's simple really, on routes that are very much dominated by Pacers (e.g. Piccadilly - Chester) make the fares third class. On routes that are mainly Sprinters (e.g. Liverpool - Manchester Airport) make it standard class.

Yes, Pacer substitutions on Sprinter routes can and does happen, but its the minority of times. The fact is, if the Passengers are using a route that is "mainly" Sprinters, they should pay a lot more for it than the Pacer customers.

 

[northwichcat]

PS most 156 seating is airline, without fold down tables, so 3rd class?

Only the Scotrail 156s don't have fold down tables, which means over 60% of 156s do have tables. The Scotrail 156s also have the original 1980s British Rail interiors so could you really claim that those trains aren't economy class?

Likewise Pacer, with 2+2 seating and a toilet, but no tables is 3rd, but so would the original bus seat variant?

Think about what you've written there. You seem to be suggesting that having two different Pacer layouts both as 3rd class is wrong, yet you are saying it is fine for them to all as in the same 'standard class' definition meaning they are in the same category as standard on an East Coast train. That makes no sense!

The Inter-City idea, of a third class, us betwen Second and First, or enhanced First. Yours is simply not well thought through enough, or suitably developed, to be of any consideration, sorry.

There is no second class currently - it's standard class. If it goes ahead do you suggest that operators who offer basic First Class like London Midland should downgrade First Class to 'Enhanced Standard'?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The fact is, if the Passengers are using a route that is "mainly" Sprinters, they should pay a lot more for it than the Pacer customers.

I think there should be a caveat on that sentence. If you're doing Delamere-Manchester there's only one train every hour and it's a long time to spend on a poor quality train. If you're doing Marple-Manchester there's multiple trains per hour and you're not spending as long on the poor quality train. So the Marple passengers get better value from their ticket then the Delamere passengers do.