Are the users of "Intercity" TOCs primarily long distance travelers or commuters?

[Lloyds siding]

These surveys under represent commuters....I should know, i used to carry out the surveys. I used to do the Virgin passenger surveys on the Pendolinos...it was quite a long survey, about 40 questions, though most folk would skip a section because it didn't apply. Short distance commuters didn't want one because they wouldn't have time to fill it in (and worse still, I don't get the survey back and don't get paid)!
I certanly do commute on Intercity trains myself: I used to do Liverpool-Redditch every morning and return! Lots of commuters doing Liverpool-Manchester on long distance trains, Wigan or Warrington to Preston...done those too!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certanly do commute on Intercity trains myself: I used to do Liverpool-Redditch every morning and return! Lots of commuters doing Liverpool-Manchester on long distance trains, Wigan or Warrington to Preston...done those too!

I've commuted Liverpool to Manchester back in the late 90s, and it was a great example of how the only fast commuter-timed train being a long-distance one was a very, very bad thing - it was always a 2-car 158 and full and standing, often leaving people behind at Birchwood, and on the way home about as punctual as a not very punctual thing because it had come all the way from Norwich. It was a great example of a situation where the long-distance train not carrying local passengers, and a long fast local train running just before or after, would be a really good idea.

The other practical option, lengthening the "IC", would have resulted in a lot of fresh air being carried for the rest of the journey.

My view tends towards the idea that the European dedicated model with lower frequencies is much, much better than ours - more robust, more punctual, more reliable and better catering to the needs of each user group. Though there are exceptions, and DB has them too - in our situation, for instance, the Paddington-Penzance might perhaps be IC to Plymouth thence RE.

 

[matacaster]

But then we've been in lockdown/semi lockdown where I assume none of your rivals have been travelling to have face to face meetings either

That might start to change though. If my company is mainly back in the office, and asks 3 companies to tender for work, with 2 travelling to see me while the other one does it on Zoom, will the Zoom one be at a disadvantage?

The one using zoom may be at a disadvantage there, but this may be offset by zoom meetings potentially being much more frequent, easier to set up (particularly if there are several employees travelling which is more difficult to coordinate) and far easier to rearrange. I suspect that most meetings will in future take place on zoom or suchlike, but large contracts will still get at least the big boys round the table at the inception and contract signing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The one using zoom may be at a disadvantage there, but this may be offset by zoom meetings potentially being much more frequent, easier to set up (particularly if there are several employees travelling which is more difficult to coordinate) and far easier to rearrange. I suspect that most meetings will in future take place on zoom or suchlike, but large contracts will still get at least the big boys round the table at the inception and contract signing.

That's really how I see it - which is how we operated pre-COVID. On site workshops at the start of the project and on site to support testing and go-live, but everything in between remote, with far more meetings than there would be if travel was needed.

 

[zwk500]

That's really how I see it - which is how we operated pre-COVID. On site workshops at the start of the project and on site to support testing and go-live, but everything in between remote, with far more meetings than there would be if travel was needed.

Yep, that's how I see it happening as well.

 

[Failed Unit]

I've commuted Liverpool to Manchester back in the late 90s, and it was a great example of how the only fast commuter-timed train being a long-distance one was a very, very bad thing - it was always a 2-car 158 and full and standing, often leaving people behind at Birchwood, and on the way home about as punctual as a not very punctual thing because it had come all the way from Norwich. It was a great example of a situation where the long-distance train not carrying local passengers, and a long fast local train running just before or after, would be a really good idea.

The other practical option, lengthening the "IC", would have resulted in a lot of fresh air being carried for the rest of the journey.

My view tends towards the idea that the European dedicated model with lower frequencies is much, much better than ours - more robust, more punctual, more reliable and better catering to the needs of each user group. Though there are exceptions, and DB has them too - in our situation, for instance, the Paddington-Penzance might perhaps be IC to Plymouth thence RE.

They had similar issues around Birmingham when the Voyagers came in. (Maybe still do - not done the New Street rush hour for a while) I am not sure if some stops had "stops to pick up / set down" only on them. But the 4 car Voyagers were a real issue for over-crowding. (Despite alternative operators offering services). I remember the Birmingham - Edinburgh service being full when it was a Voyager as far as Preston (then empty to Edinburgh) - It was a great relief when it became a Pendo.

Leeds - London in the peak are sometimes full to Doncaster, and then virtually empty for the rest of their journey. But not aware of this impacting the long distance passengers.

 

[Snow1964]

"It depends" is the full answer really.
Thinking locally to me, GWR's intercity service is absolutely used as a commuting service between say Bristol and Bath. Even though there are other local services too, the intercity services provide most of the seats between the stations especially in rush hour.

You can extend this further, and include big commuter towns like Chippenham. There are simply no local trains, so by default all rail commuters have to travel on the intercity trains. (The infrequent service via Melksham exists, but that is not a Chippenham-Bath-Bristol local)

I some think that some seem to assume commuter flows have to be to London, forgetting that many companies have moved many offices to provincial cities

 

[Dr Day]

Lets not forget some of the commuting only exists because of the 'InterCity' service, not the other way around - some people only consider living where they do, and developers build/are given planning permission to build houses where they do because there is a 'fast' train option - even if it only one peak service per day.

 

[tbtc]

Absolutely this. I've been thinking since the thread started that the two operators with which I'm most familiar, GWR and Avanti (and their predecessors) are simply both, not “primarily” one or the other. It's just one of these ill-posed questions which crop up quite frequently.

Agreed - I don't know why people are so fascinated with trying to turn everything into some binary argument

Is it ill-posed, though? Almost every other country segregates, because the needs of the two user groups are highly disparate.

British exceptionalism?

Almost every other country built their railways after us, and in a more organised manner (than our "leave it up to Victorian entrepreneurs and then the state comes along and tries to bail them out whilst picking up the pieces)

I think we'd be better turning this into a thread about If I Were Building The First UK Railways In 2021, This Is What I'd Do, rather than trying to reverse engineer some Germanic solution to our problems. Maybe it'd all be lovely if our trains worked like theirs did, but we aren't starting from scratch, we don't have the ability to rip everything up and start again

For example, maybe you'd turn Edinburgh - Plymouth into a faster service only stopping at the larger places and only every few hours - maybe that makes sense if you have a blank sheet of paper - but on the busy clock face network that we have, there's no space for such luxuries (it'd only get stuck behind some 75mph/90mph train, so wouldn't save much more than a couple of minutes overalll, but at the same time you'd be inconveniencing a lot of existing passengers). There's simply no space to fit in both types of service, which is why we have these messy "compromises" all over the network (however much it might annoy those with a binary fixation)

If we're talking about what we have, I think it definitely is … the thread title asks about current users of UK “InterCity” TOCs (without actually defining what those are, as well … any TOC that provides a service which calls at at least 2 cities, I guess would be the most logical interpretation?) — and I think the answer is that both “classes” of user use them in general, not primarily one or the other

I suppose that, by that definition, the Tyne & Wear Metro is InterCIty (the Green Route links the city of Newcastle to the city of Sunderland), Metrolink is InterCity (the Blue Route links the city of Manchester to the city of Salford) and the Supertram is positively inter-regional (the Blue Route runs from Yorkshire & The Humber through the East Midlands and back to Yorkshire & The Humber)... as well as many London Underground services (which run from the City of Westminster to the City of London)!

But then, there's never any agreement on what InterCity is, other than people who have a fascination with 1980s BR and try to re-engineer things to fit that (which means we have to pretend that Gatwick is somehow a "city")

 

[stuu]

They had similar issues around Birmingham when the Voyagers came in. (Maybe still do - not done the New Street rush hour for a while) I am not sure if some stops had "stops to pick up / set down" only on them. But the 4 car Voyagers were a real issue for over-crowding. (Despite alternative operators offering services). I remember the Birmingham - Edinburgh service being full when it was a Voyager as far as Preston (then empty to Edinburgh) - It was a great relief when it became a Pendo.

I used to catch the XC service from Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton, the 1745 was always full and standing, and if only a four-car turned up, was reminiscent of Mumbai. There were at least 150 passengers doing that one journey. The alternative is the stopping service which takes exactly twice as long. The only obvious solution would be to run an alternative fast train around the same time and remove ticket acceptance from the XC service but I doubt there is the capacity to do that, either rolling stock or paths

 

[Taunton]

I used to catch the XC service from Bristol Temple Meads to Taunton, the 1745 was always full and standing, and if only a four-car turned up, was reminiscent of Mumbai.

I took that train a lot, lot earlier. Bristol to Taunton, again part of a long itinerary. Despite the Warship having only about half the power of a 4-car Voyager, it was about an 11-coach formation, and took just a few minutes longer. From about Yatton to Bridgwater it cruised at about 85mph. Do you know, there were times in the 1960s when even on that it was every seat taken - and there were services an hour before and an hour afterwards. However can it be thought that 4 coaches is any way sufficient. It is not only oversubscribed there, the same applies through Leeds and Birmingham.

 

[gallafent]

Does this mean the Bradford-Leeds all shacks via Shipley is an Intercity service? To my mind intercity is Higher-speed limited stop between major population centres, regardless of city status.

That was more or less my point: the definition of “InterCity” for the purposes of this question hasn't been pinned down That would be a good start for any sensible discussion!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was more or less my point: the definition of “InterCity” for the purposes of this question hasn't been pinned down That would be a good start for any sensible discussion!

With DB it has three meanings:
* Stations more than a given distance apart
* Quality of service, e.g. an IC would in the past be downgraded to a D (Durchgangs-Schnellzug/corridored express train) if no catering was planned, with a cheaper fare based on the lower quality of service
* Who funds it - in Germany and Switzerland IR/IC/ICE/ICN are funded nationally or commercial, while S/R/RB/RE/IRE are funded by the regional Governments

The third isn't really applicable to us, but the first two are.

 

[AM9]

That was more or less my point: the definition of “InterCity” for the purposes of this question hasn't been pinned down That would be a good start for any sensible discussion!

That is a recurring matter on any thread that uses the term 'inter-city' and then attempts to use that as a qualitative term. If using the 'city' literally, then a Bedford to Brighton Thameslink train serves four such entities: St Albans, London City, The City of London (as in the square mile), and Brighton & Hove. TL trains also serve Cambridge and Peterborough (and Welwyn Garden ).

 

[bahnause]

* Who funds it - in Germany and Switzerland IR/IC/ICE/ICN are funded nationally or commercial, while S/R/RB/RE/IRE are funded by the regional Governments

This distinction makes no difference in terms of use. If I commute from Zürich to Bern, I take the IC. If I go from Zürich to Bern for a hike, I take the IC. The journey time in this case is 56 minutes, the demands are therefore mostly the same from the point of view of both user groups. It doesn't seem logical to me to deter a commuter from taking a long distance train just because he travels daily or regularly. If the demand exists, the offer should be adjusted accordingly. It doesn't seem to be efficient to have separate trains for different user groups, just because they have a different reason for their journey.

 

[zwk500]

That is a recurring matter on any thread that uses the term 'inter-city' and then attempts to use that as a qualitative term. If using the 'city' literally, then a Bedford to Brighton Thameslink train serves four such entities: St Albans, London City, The City of London, and Brighton & Hove. TL trains also serve Cambridge and Peterborough (and Welwyn Garden ).

Of course, the UK is rather odd in that 'official' city status is purely at the behest of the monarch and has no strict qualifying criteria at all. The title also doesn't automatically pass on to successor administrative bodies, as Rochester keeps reminding anybody that will listen.

Brighton has no 'Intercity' services as such (if we're using the high-speed, limited stop, quality service definition) but services to the cities of Bristol, Cambridge, [possibly Gloucester?], London, Portsmouth, Salisbury, St Albans, Southampton, Westminster and Worcester.

Apologies for dragging this off-topic. I'm sure there's many previous threads on what is and isn't an 'intercity' service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This distinction makes no difference in terms of use. If I commute from Zürich to Bern, I take the IC. If I go from Zürich to Bern for a hike, I take the IC. The journey time in this case is 56 minutes, the demands are therefore mostly the same from the point of view of both user groups. It doesn't seem logical to me to deter a commuter from taking a long distance train just because he travels daily or regularly. If the demand exists, the offer should be adjusted accordingly. It doesn't seem to be efficient to have separate trains for different user groups, just because they have a different reason for their journey.

It does, though, because long-distance travellers need comfort, high luggage space and catering, but short-distance commuters need as much capacity as possible. Combining them results in inefficiency and poor compromise - for instance, running an 11-coach train all the way from London to Scotland just to provide for London-MK passengers, and you have reduced comfort so you can cram those passengers in.

Combined use of this kind just results in the worst of both worlds - like Switzerland's awful IC2000 Dosto stock with no legroom and narrow seats.

56 minutes is probably long enough to be a long distance journey, to be fair to you. However, most of those heavy commuter loads under discussion for the UK aren't. Euston-MK and Paddington-Reading are both about half an hour. Coventry-Brum is even less than that. These are precisely the journeys that should be on local trains.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It does, though, because long-distance travellers need comfort, high luggage space and catering,

Need is different to want.
On many routes in the country, long distance travelers already have to deal with compromises in terms of comfort and luggage space etc.
Whilst I am not suggesting a race to the bottom, the very fact we already deal with that proves it isn't a need.

56 minutes is probably long enough to be a long distance journey, to be fair to you. However, most of those heavy commuter loads under discussion for the UK aren't. Euston-MK and Paddington-Reading are both about half an hour. Coventry-Brum is even less than that. These are precisely the journeys that should be on local trains.

But those journeys wouldn't be half an hour on local trains.
Paddington - Reading is an hour by local stopper, and Euston - MK is about the same.

Plus by pushing those commuters to use those local trains you make those local trains busier which will mean people who join at intermediate stations only served by the local trains may well have a harder time getting on board. You see this between Bristol and Bath, as soon as there's issues with the London trains the local trains get horrifically overcrowded and you basically cannot board if you are at an intermediate station like Keynsham.

And of course, by essentially barring shorter distance commuters from about half the services (or more in some case), you make journeys much much more difficult for no real reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But those journeys wouldn't be half an hour on local trains.
Paddington - Reading is an hour by local stopper, and Euston - MK is about the same.

The fastest LNR service is 35 minutes, the second fastest about 40. "Local train" doesn't have to mean "all stations stopper". For Reading I'd envisage a 4tph 12-car service of Paddington-Slough-Reading only, for instance.

Plus by pushing those commuters to use those local trains you make those local trains busier which will mean people who join at intermediate stations only served by the local trains may well have a harder time getting on board.

See above.

And of course, by essentially barring shorter distance commuters from about half the services (or more in some case), you make journeys much much more difficult for no real reason.

There is a reason - more efficient rolling stock usage and better tailoring the product to the users' needs rather than a poor compromise.

 

[DarloRich]

Are the users of "Intercity" TOCs primarily long distance travelers or commuters - Why does it have to be one or the other? Could it not be both?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are the users of "Intercity" TOCs primarily long distance travelers or commuters - Why does it have to be one or the other? Could it not be both?

No, because it causes the service to be a compromise, because the main needs of the two groups differ markedly, and it results in inefficient rolling stock use.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The fastest LNR service is 35 minutes, the second fastest about 40. "Local train" doesn't have to mean "all stations stopper". For Reading I'd envisage a 4tph 12-car service of Paddington-Slough-Reading only, for instance.

So where you are going to find the paths to add these extra services in?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So where you are going to find the paths to add these extra services in?

In the case of LNR it would just require more rolling stock and some Euston platforming tweaks so that more trains were 12-car for the morning peak. For the evening peak, Avanti already don't provide a meaningful service to MKC.

The GW I'm less familiar with.

 

[bahnause]

It does, though, because long-distance travellers need comfort, high luggage space and catering, but short-distance commuters need as much capacity as possible. Combining them results in inefficiency and poor compromise - for instance, running an 11-coach train all the way from London to Scotland just to provide for London-MK passengers, and you have reduced comfort so you can cram those passengers in.

Comfort in terms of physical aspects depends on travel time. It doesn't really matter if I'm traveling for pleasure or to work. As there wil always be a mix of people on the train, the compromise can be achieved. Lots of people bring their bike on a day trip and lots of people bring their bike to work. So bikespace is needed in both worlds. If you don't allow bikes on a commuter train due to a lack of space, there won't be any bikes. It doesn't mean that there is no demand for it.

Combined use of this kind just results in the worst of both worlds - like Switzerland's awful IC2000 Dosto stock with no legroom and narrow seats.

I use them to go to work and I went on a holiday more than once with them. With a lot of luggage. Plenty of space between the seats for luggage, didn't even need the racks. Legroom was perfectly fine for me (1.87m).

The real comfort for me is:
-Not having to worry wich train I can take.
-Having a seat.
-No reservation needed (as plans may change).
-Having good connections for a competitive overall trip time (really hard to achieve if you split up trains for different user groups, one will always miss out. I travel from "door to door", not from "station to station").

 

[WelshBluebird]

In the case of LNR it would just require more rolling stock and some Euston platforming tweaks so that more trains were 12-car for the morning peak. For the evening peak, Avanti already don't provide a meaningful service to MKC.

The GW I'm less familiar with.

I am less familiar with Euston - MK, but certainly for most of GWR's services, if you are going to add specific commuting services that are limited stop then you will need to remove either well used local services (that are well used because they stop at intermediate stations) or remove well used long distance services (which are ironically the services you are trying to improve).

 

[bramling]

Are the users of "Intercity" TOCs primarily long distance travelers or commuters - Why does it have to be one or the other? Could it not be both?

I agree with the view that the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue, but it becomes one when people start making proposals like compulsory reservations which then upset the apple cart.

I tend to agree with the view that separating the flows is probably better, but on our congested railway it’s pretty much impossible to achieve.

 

[tbtc]

That was more or less my point: the definition of “InterCity” for the purposes of this question hasn't been pinned down That would be a good start for any sensible discussion!

That is a recurring matter on any thread that uses the term 'inter-city' and then attempts to use that as a qualitative term

I tried a thread on this a few years ago - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-is-intercity.88720/ - given the way that people seemed to have very fixed views on stock with end doors/ corridor connections/ no buffet car - unsurprisingly there was no real consensus!

For Reading I'd envisage a 4tph 12-car service of Paddington-Slough-Reading only, for instance

Fair enough

Which four longer distance trains per hour are you scrapping to make way for these services, out of interest?

(given the line is pretty full from Paddington to Reading)

Are the users of "Intercity" TOCs primarily long distance travelers or commuters - Why does it have to be one or the other? Could it not be both?

Of course

(unless you see the railway in a rather simplistic view, where everything has to fit one pigeon hole and one pigeon hole only)

No, because it causes the service to be a compromise, because the main needs of the two groups differ markedly, and it results in inefficient rolling stock use.

Every service is a compromise though (different types of passengers with different needs, trains travelling at different speeds at different parts of the journey etc) - and we don't have room on the railway for all of the separate services that you want to run

So sometimes we have a situation like the 185s running from Newcastle to Manchester Airport - First Class for the longer distance passengers, wide "commuter" doors for the churn of passengers doing shorter journeys like Leeds to Huddersfield, large luggage space for the Airport passengers... but we don't have space to run three separate trains in that path to split apart the long distance passengers, the short distance passengers and the Airport passengers (in fact, this is one corridor where you keep suggesting we reduce the frequencies), so some degree of compromise is required

I tend to agree with the view that separating the flows is probably better, but on our congested railway it’s pretty much impossible to achieve.

Ideally, sure, but I can't see it ever happening

 

[Bletchleyite]

So sometimes we have a situation like the 185s running from Newcastle to Manchester Airport - First Class for the longer distance passengers, wide "commuter" doors for the churn of passengers doing shorter journeys like Leeds to Huddersfield, large luggage space for the Airport passengers... but we don't have space to run three separate trains in that path to split apart the long distance passengers, the short distance passengers and the Airport passengers (in fact, this is one corridor where you keep suggesting we reduce the frequencies), so some degree of compromise is required

One aspect of that reduction would be that it would make room for reinstatement of the Northern stopping services that used to run, of course.

 

[alistairlees]

I wish people would stop trying to pigeonhole everything. The reality is that almost every train service carries quite a mixture of different types of customer. The service cannot be all things to all people - so there are compromises. Most people - except, perhaps, some forum members - get along perfectly well with this situation. If I were running a TOC I would be very happy with this situation; it means increased revenue. Trying to segment markets too much on a tightly integrated railway like in GB is likely to lead to revenue loss.

 

[bramling]

I wish people would stop trying to pigeonhole everything. The reality is that almost every train service carries quite a mixture of different types of customer. The service cannot be all things to all people - so there are compromises. Most people - except, perhaps, some forum members - get along perfectly well with this situation. If I were running a TOC I would be very happy with this situation; it means increased revenue. Trying to segment markets too much on a tightly integrated railway like in GB is likely to lead to revenue loss.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, there are specific issues.

Take EMR for example. The industry has just spent a fortune on electrifying to Corby, which has essentially got commuters off the Nottingham and Sheffield EMR services. In some ways this is simply a natural rebalancing of the fact that the commuter area has shifted outwards, and that the Midland commuter boundary at Bedford was always a bit closer towards London in mileage terms than other NSE routes (Bedford is distance equivalent of about Sandy on the adjacent GN route). Getting commuters off the Sheffield and Nottingham services has brought a number of benefits operationally, one of which is you no longer need a 10-car train leaving London which then has to run all the way to Yorkshire.

But this solution simply isn’t viable everywhere, the amount of work required for the Corby service has been massive. With this being the case, compulsory reservations simply aren’t a good idea.