What Is InterCity?

[Goatboy]

If you gave me a choice between a 159 or a 221 to travel from Penzance to Inverness it would take me approximately 1 second to make that choice.

 

[1e10]

I'd say something like a 159 is up to Intercity standard. They were built to a fairly high comfort standard and in the case of SWT their refurbs have kept them decent. For example a 159 has the same seating in First as EC and FGW, standard is comfortable if a little tight on legroom (then so are XC and EC standard seats)

I agree that a 159 is comfortable, as is a 158. They top out at 90MPH ehich is no good for some routes.

If you gave me a choice between a 159 or a 221 to travel from Penzance to Inverness it would take me approximately 1 second to make that choice.

You'd go for the Voyager, right?

 

[Beveridges]

If you gave me a choice between a 159 or a 221 to travel from Penzance to Inverness it would take me approximately 1 second to make that choice.

You'd go for the Voyager, right?

I think he means the 159

 

[3141]

Although of course the Chiltern line (or parts of it!) was where 'InterCity' began with the 0900 Paddington to Wolverhampton - 'The Inter-City' named express train! Somewhat ironic that Chiltern are now making it a mainline again after BR ran it right down.

To paraphrase the title of this thread - "What is a mainline? Chiltern have used the word "mainline" for their major upgrade scheme which has enabled them to run faster services, but that's just a name and doesn't provide a definition. Chiltern might now be considered to be more of a main line than it was previously, but not as much as the West Coast Main Line. Is the line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury and main line? Birmingham to Shrewsbury? Basingstoke to Exeter? [Insert your own example]

I think all we can say, as some have already, is that Intercity was a brand, and it implied longer distances, high average speeds and not many stops. Some services have one or two of those characteristics but are not necessarily Intercity. I think you could even say that similar trains running along the same route are Intercity if they are non-stop, or have few stops, but maybe not Intercity if they have several stops. FGW seemed to have made such a distinction by running two kinds if HST - some with more first class seats and a better provision of food, and others with higher density seating and a trolley.

 

[Sidious]

This is an interesting topic, but some of the arguments are fundamentally flawed because all INTERCITY or Inter-City was was a brand. A successful one, but it sold a concept.

It served some very obscure locations. As an example to take the East-Coast route, some services called at Huntingdon or Hichin, which are not served by today's services.

What eventually became the Crosscountry sector served Brighton - it even had a named train 'The Sussex Scot'.

But it also employed some slow stock - as an example, would a Class 47 and 6 mark 2 coaches running between Manchester and Glasgow, with a top speed of 95 miles per hour and without a buffet car be any more Inter-City than a 100 MPH class 185 is today on the same route?

Is a HST running between Oxford and Hereford at 65 MPH more of an Intercity service than a Class 50 and 8 coaches running along the South West Main Line at 100 miles per hour between Waterloo and Salisbury?

Where does Grand Central sit? It operates through some stations in West Yorkshire which were never in the Intercity portfolio, but using a 125 MPH DMU.

Then you have the Cambridge Flier. Never an Intercity Service, but arguably more of one than a Class 90 and MkIII coaches between London and Norwich, it certainly has a much higher average speed...

Then there are London Midland EMUS cleared for 110 MPH on the WCML. Not an Intercity train per se, but fulfilling the criteria racing limited stop between Liverpool and Birmingham with two classes of accommodation, and faster journey times than under BR Intercity days.

This is a topic which will never be answered, because everyone will have different ideas. INTERCITY was a brand which I was very sorry to see go, but maybe in hindsight it was a brand which had in fact run out of steam and it was put to bed at the right time?

 

[Qwerty133]

If you gave me a choice between a 159 or a 221 to travel from Penzance to Inverness it would take me approximately 1 second to make that choice.

if I had the choice between a 221 or a hst it would take less than half a second to chose!
and I wouldn't chose the hst

 

[Deerfold]

This is an interesting topic, but some of the arguments are fundamentally flawed because all INTERCITY or Inter-City was was a brand. A successful one, but it sold a concept.

It served some very obscure locations. As an example to take the East-Coast route, some services called at Huntingdon or Hichin, which are not served by today's services.

I'm not sure I'd call Huntingdon or Hitchin obscure.

Before Stevenage New Town was built, Hitchin was the largest town for some distance.

Nowadays of course such huge settlements as Par have a direct HST service to London..

 

[Lampshade]

I wouldn't call TPE an InterCity TOC, it just so happens they've found themselves operating an InterCity route (Manchester - Scotland) with regional trains, a route that should have gone to XC. Their other routes were 158 or 175 operated before 2004, and call at multiple stations, they're long routes, not InterCity routes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is a topic which will never be answered, because everyone will have different ideas.

.
On the Continent, they classify each train, so it's obvious which is Intercity (TGV, ICE, AVE, RJ etc) and which is not (RE etc).
It also comes through in the fare structure and on-board facilities, with supplements or special fares being the order of the day for IC-type services.
Some take this to extremes with far too many categories (eg in Italy with their Freccia-whatnot).

Meanwhile, we seem to have a mish-mash of trains and services, and don't bother to identify different categories of service.
The GB fare structure is still based on "a train is a train" whatever stock actually turns up.
I know the TOCs have individual deals as well, but basically a Pacer and a Pendolino are the same animal to us, with the same fare (eg between Wigan and Preston).
Attempts to categorise our trains like "Alphaline" didn't work out as they were largely incomprehensible to the public.
Even "Sprinter" lost its point when all DMUs became sprinters.

 

[glbotu]

.
On the Continent, they classify each train, so it's obvious which is Intercity (TGV, ICE, AVE, RJ etc) and which is not (RE etc).
It also comes through in the fare structure and on-board facilities, with supplements or special fares being the order of the day for IC-type services.
Some take this to extremes with far too many categories (eg in Italy with their Freccia-whatnot).

Meanwhile, we seem to have a mish-mash of trains and services, and don't bother to identify different categories of service.
The GB fare structure is still based on "a train is a train" whatever stock actually turns up.
I know the TOCs have individual deals as well, but basically a Pacer and a Pendolino are the same animal to us, with the same fare (eg between Wigan and Preston).
Attempts to categorise our trains like "Alphaline" didn't work out as they were largely incomprehensible to the public.
Even "Sprinter" lost its point when all DMUs became sprinters.

The European Classification system is very useful, and they have a distinction between High Speed and others. High Speed tends to be able to have whatever name it wants (France: TGV, Germany: ICE, Belgium: Thalys, Netherlands: Fyra, Italy: Le Frecce***).

The rest are classified on more or less the same system:

EC - EuroCity, international long distance
CNL - CityNightLine, international long distance sleeper
IC - InterCity, national long distance

At which point it sort of breaks down depending on the country, but they all have some form of:

IR - Interregio, semi-fast service between regions.
RV/RE - Express Regional, stops at the major stops within a region.
RE/RB - Local service, usually following the same line as the RV.

These are generally considered international, which is really useful when travelling between countries in Europe. While it would be nice to have a similar system here, I think that as this thread points out, it's actually pretty hard to define. For example, would would you define King's Cross - Cambridge, IC or RV/IR? Assuming we set a 125 mph cutoff boundary for our "High Speed" services, meaning HS1, ECML, WCML and GWML (with any further destinations as High Speed over regular lines), you could probably call MML IC, but then you get some pretty serious breakdowns. Whats Edinburgh - Glasgow? SWML services feel a lot like Italian RV (albeit with newer trains), but London - Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth could conceivably be an IC service. We'd really struggle to define a "Region" (maybe old BR regions? Counties? TOC boundaries?) for the IR type trains.

What I'm saying is that while the European system is very useful, it would be more difficult to apply to Britain, due to our somewhat unique railway system. I mean in the days of sectorisation we only really divided into InterCity, NSE and Regional Railways, but many Regional Railways services went over quite considerable distances as did NSE. The divide was more one for operational convenience than anything passenger related.

My personal opinion on the meaning of InterCity is anything that, were sectorisation immediately brought back, would get the Swallow livery. So WCML, ECML, MML, GWML, XC and GEML London - Norwich. Given the consideration for IEP stock to be used on Cambridge Cruisers, those could also be Intercity (although the Thameslink trains would be NSE). It makes sense that Cambridge isn't THAT much further South than Corby. I think the long and short of what's Intercity is seeing whether you feel like you're on an InterCity journey. The distance, speed, comfort levels and stopping pattern should all be taken into consideration, but an outright definition isn't really possible. I mean, it wasn't really possible back when InterCity was a brand as there were many services that many would probably feel wasn't deserving (GatEx), whereas others that maybe should have had it.

Using the borderline Cambridge Cruiser as an example, I can definitely imagine that a change of stock on the line might warrant the InterCity mantle and while different stock might seem like a triviality, it would definitely give the line a different feel.

***Le Frecce combines FrecciaRossa, FrecciaBianca and FrecciArgento, which are just names of different lines provided by the overall Italian High Speed Service.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

I've always felt that Intercity stands for the quickest route between 2 cities.

I know in the old BR days of the late 1960's even the Sheffield Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly services were classed as Inter-City

Did the Inter-City brand start around 1967/8 ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know in the old BR days of the late 1960's even the Sheffield Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly services were classed as Inter-City
Did the Inter-City brand start around 1967/8 ?

Essentially it started with the West Coast electrification and Mk2 stock in 1966.
I think Mk2s were the first to have "InterCity" decals.
They came from the "XP64" prototype design in 1964, with the WCML getting the first production run.
Then it spread to the other main lines as they got Mk2s, and then became a brand.
Sectorisation then put them organisationally under one umbrella with the swallow symbol and APT-derived livery from the early 1980s.
For a couple of years before privatisation the Sectors replaced the Regions (ie InterCity was an integrated business owning its assets rather than just a marketing brand, as were NSE and Regional Railways).

 

[jon0844]

I'd say the fast service to Cambridge is not Intercity because it uses rolling stock that I wouldn't classify (myself) as Intercity standard. There's nothing on offer in first class, no buffet, and no trolley. There's also no Wi-Fi or power sockets.

Change the stock and you might then be able to call the Cambridge non-stop trains an Intercity service, with the semi-fast/slow service being regional.

I'd say an Intercity train can't just be judged on distance (Cambridge isn't that far) but a specific minimum standard for the train itself. If Cambridge ever did get an Intercity service (unlikely, but let's say it did) then you could probably charge extra for it.

With the super franchises planned, you'd either have all of the potentially small routes run by one operator - but that, in practice, couldn't work. A single operator for a 2tph service to Cambridge? Far better as part of a bigger franchise.

And then you need to consider that if the same TOC runs the fast and slow trains, how do you charge different amounts? That would mean more than just saying 'FCC only' and mean a change to ticketing, such as a standard cost from A to B, and supplements on top for certain trains.

No doubt this would then prove rather confusing to many, including tourists, and I'm merely thinking 'out loud'.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I vaguely remember seeing pictures of the flapper boards at London Victoria in the early 1980s labeling express services to Brighton with "InterCity".

 

[1e10]

I wouldn't call TPE an InterCity TOC, it just so happens they've found themselves operating an InterCity route (Manchester - Scotland) with regional trains, a route that should have gone to XC. Their other routes were 158 or 175 operated before 2004, and call at multiple stations, they're long routes, not InterCity routes.

Oh no, more routes for crowded Voyagers to run on

 

[yorksrob]

Given their length and the facilities on board, the 221 voyagers strike me as being more "regional railways express" than "InterCity", but then again, that's pretty much the status that TPE services have had since before privatisation.

 

[D365]

Oh no, more routes for crowded Voyagers to run on

Manchester-Scotland has been proposed for transfer to WC to be run by the purported 'Baby-Pendos', when the electrification and franchising is sorted out.

Referring to tbtc's following post, yes, the faithful 365s (and the 317s which preceded them on this 'flagship' service) are running a service which could easily be considered InterCity.

 

[tbtc]

I'd say something like a 159 is up to Intercity standard. They were built to a fairly high comfort standard and in the case of SWT their refurbs have kept them decent. For example a 159 has the same seating in First as EC and FGW, standard is comfortable if a little tight on legroom (then so are XC and EC standard seats)

Good point - the quality of seating probably matters to the "customer experience" than top speed etc

it also employed some slow stock - as an example, would a Class 47 and 6 mark 2 coaches running between Manchester and Glasgow, with a top speed of 95 miles per hour and without a buffet car be any more Inter-City than a 100 MPH class 185 is today on the same route?

Its interesting that people complaining about Voyagers not being good enough for an InterCity service forget that a lot of the time it was Mk2s that they replaced

Then you have the Cambridge Flier. Never an Intercity Service, but arguably more of one than a Class 90 and MkIII coaches between London and Norwich, it certainly has a much higher average speed...

Another good point - nobody seems to consider the 365s as "InterCity", but they tick a number of boxes and run a service that could easily be considered InterCity.

 

[yorksrob]

Its interesting that people complaining about Voyagers not being good enough for an InterCity service forget that a lot of the time it was Mk2s that they replaced

Ah, but the Mk2's were comfortable and had a buffet car (even if they were a little raggedy round the edges !).

 

[northwichcat]

In another thread tbtc mentioned Liverpool-Birmingham not being Intercity.

If we look at one station served by that service, Hartford.

The station could take an 11 car train and is on the WCML, so that sounds good for it being an Intercity service.

In the 1990s selected Liverpool-London, Liverpool-South Wales and Liverpool-South Coast services stopped there so in the 1990s you wouldn't debate whether the some of trains stopping there were Intercity - they clearly were. The number of business people in that area of Cheshire and the ICI works helped justify Intercity trains calling there.

More recently under Central Trains Hartford got served by an hourly Liverpool-Stansted Airport service operated by 158s and 170s which falls in to the debatable Intercity category.

When the service got cut back to Birmingham there was a daily Liverpool-London service (Central/Silverlink) calling at Hartford (withdrawn in Dec 08) and extra calls have been added in to Liverpool-Birmingham since (Liverpool South Parkway wasn't served by them, while some West Midlands stations are now served by all trains instead of alternate trains.)

The service has also gone from all class 350/1 operated (TPE are trying to make out the new similar 350/4s are Intercity trains) to mainly 350/2 operated.

So over time there's been gradual changes from an Intercity service serving the station to a Regional Express service serving the station but as they've been gradual people didn't suddenly think they no longer get Intercity trains, they probably thought initially we get Intercity trains still but have lost direct links to the likes of London and Cardiff.

 

[Sidious]

Using the borderline Cambridge Cruiser as an example, I can definitely imagine that a change of stock on the line might warrant the InterCity mantle and while different stock might seem like a triviality, it would definitely give the line a different feel.

I wouldn't call TPE an InterCity TOC, it just so happens they've found themselves operating an InterCity route (Manchester - Scotland) with regional trains, a route that should have gone to XC.

So these two posts suggest that it goes back to stock again?

While London - Cambridge is maybe an Inter-City route (arguably similar to London - Ipswich), and maybe isn't - despite using high speed stock (100 MPH) and having a very high average speed between the two cities on account of running non-stop. If Class 91 and Mk IV's could be cascaded onto King's Cross - King's Lynn services however, it would be comparable to Liverpool Street - Norwich which clearly is Inter-City?

We agree that Manchester to Scotland is an Inter-City route, but is it a 3 car 100 MPH DMU which is not suitable to be an Inter-City Train? Is it the length of the train? XC Voyagers are only one carriage longer. Is it the speed? Well under BR days the services only ran at 95 MPH under Inter-City? Or is it the operator, that TPE isn't an Inter-City operator? Well then in that case neither is FGW for operating from Plymouth to Gunnislake, and EMT which operate from Skegness to Nottingham!

Which brings us back to there not being a hard and fast rule.

But then compare with Continental Europe. Denmark's Intercity trains are 3 car 180 km/h (112 mph) Bombardier DMU'S.

Not too dissimilar from a 3 car 185!

Then we still haven't placed where a 110 MPH London Midland 4 car set falls... Intercity, or not?!

 

[tbtc]

Ah, but the Mk2's were comfortable and had a buffet car (even if they were a little raggedy round the edges !).

By "comfortable" do you just mean the seats? Since you can have the same seats in any train then that suggests that the speed (etc) of the stock doesn't determine InterCity status.

So these two posts suggest that it goes back to stock again?

While London - Cambridge is maybe an Inter-City route (arguably similar to London - Ipswich), and maybe isn't - despite using high speed stock (100 MPH) and having a very high average speed between the two cities on account of running non-stop. If Class 91 and Mk IV's could be cascaded onto King's Cross - King's Lynn services however, it would be comparable to Liverpool Street - Norwich which clearly is Inter-City?

We agree that Manchester to Scotland is an Inter-City route, but is it a 3 car 100 MPH DMU which is not suitable to be an Inter-City Train? Is it the length of the train? XC Voyagers are only one carriage longer. Is it the speed? Well under BR days the services only ran at 95 MPH under Inter-City? Or is it the operator, that TPE isn't an Inter-City operator? Well then in that case neither is FGW for operating from Plymouth to Gunnislake, and EMT which operate from Skegness to Nottingham!

Which brings us back to there not being a hard and fast rule

Excellent points.

It can't be the TOC, because that suggests that Nottingham - Cardiff became InterCity when it moved from Central Trains to XC (Despite the same trains running it today as under CT).

If the limited stop 100mph 170 operated Hull Trains service from Hull to London was InterCity (as has been suggested on this thread) then the non-stop Cambridge - London services surely count?

Can't be about 125mph operation, because that would rule out the WCML (pre-Pendolini).

Other posts here suggest that catering is a big issue (and the freebies for First Class passengers) so maybe that's what separates Cambridge from Norwich (i.e. people assume that Norwich - London is much more important, but the buffet is about all that differentiates them - unless the fact that Norwich services are loco-hauled elevates them to InterCity status in some people's eyes?).

Interesting.

 

[MK Tom]

For me an intercity train has to have 2+2 seating or less, with tables and armrests at least. First class provision should also exist, and vestibule doorway layouts are preferable but not essential. I do count 350/1s, and I don't count 350/2s. An intercity service should be limited stop. I won't set a minimum speed because there are places, like the main line through Cornwall, where intercity services are forced to run more slowly. But 100mph capability is what I'd expect. But then you get trans-continental services in the USA that can't hit that speed.

a few examples I do consider intercity that some might not:

Victoria-Brighton calling Clapham and Croydon only.
Liverpool St-Norwich.
Waterloo-Portsmouth if run with a 444, either route. Not if run with a 450.
Waterloo-Exeter.
Euston-Northampton or Crewe if it uses the fast lines between Ledburn and Euston and is worked with a 350/1.
St Pancras-Corby.
Liverpool Lime St-Norwich.
Chilten Mainline, with 67 or 168.
Paddington-Oxford/Worcester on an HST/180.

And a few I don't that some might:

Birmingham-Aberystwyth. The 158s are intercity units but the stops are too frequent; it's a rural route fundamentally.
Kings Cross-Cambridge/Kings Lynn. 365s are 3+2 without armrests.
Euston-Birmingham with LM. Regardless of subclass, the stops like Canley and Hampton-in-Arden make it very much a local service.
Paddington-Oxford on a 165/166.

Sorry if my standards seem arbitrary, but it's just how I class things.

 

[yorksrob]

By "comfortable" do you just mean the seats? Since you can have the same seats in any train then that suggests that the speed (etc) of the stock doesn't determine InterCity status.

Indeed. I don't think that speed per se is the be all and end all, although I do think InterCity implies express as in "not a stopper".

For me part of it is historic. There are routes that I still regard as InterCity routes even if the stock doesn't quite pass muster.

 

[glbotu]

So these two posts suggest that it goes back to stock again?

While London - Cambridge is maybe an Inter-City route (arguably similar to London - Ipswich), and maybe isn't - despite using high speed stock (100 MPH) and having a very high average speed between the two cities on account of running non-stop. If Class 91 and Mk IV's could be cascaded onto King's Cross - King's Lynn services however, it would be comparable to Liverpool Street - Norwich which clearly is Inter-City?

We agree that Manchester to Scotland is an Inter-City route, but is it a 3 car 100 MPH DMU which is not suitable to be an Inter-City Train? Is it the length of the train? XC Voyagers are only one carriage longer. Is it the speed? Well under BR days the services only ran at 95 MPH under Inter-City? Or is it the operator, that TPE isn't an Inter-City operator? Well then in that case neither is FGW for operating from Plymouth to Gunnislake, and EMT which operate from Skegness to Nottingham!

Which brings us back to there not being a hard and fast rule.

But then compare with Continental Europe. Denmark's Intercity trains are 3 car 180 km/h (112 mph) Bombardier DMU'S.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...800px-DSB_train_Denmark_Aalborg_2003_ubt.jpeg Not too dissimilar from a 3 car 185!

Then we still haven't placed where a 110 MPH London Midland 4 car set falls... Intercity, or not?!

So, I think that rolling stock is part of the bigger picture. If you were to run LHCS with buffet cars on a Liverpool Street stopper, you couldn't call it InterCity. (You'd call it inappropriate allocation of resources, which is kind of why I find it risible that Cambridge - King's Lynn would have InterCity stock, I just can't imagine a 91 or an IEP stopping at the concrete slabs that constitute Waterbeach, or any of the other small villages on the line, I mean, maybe one of the fast Ely extensions, but I digress). I think that the marginal point that is stopping Cambridge Fliers being InterCity is stock, but that there are situations where the IC stock used for a service does not make said service InterCity (GatEx, Bournemouth - Weymouth stoppers).

 

[jon0844]

It would be totally impractical to have different stock for just 2tph to Cambridge, or when carrying on to King's Lynn.

But, in theory and for the sake of discussion here, the fast trains with no stops from London to Cambridge could be Intercity, and have stock that has better first class - with 'hosts' and a buffet or trolley. Wasn't IEP originally considered for these services?

I have to say that I find it odd that FCC can't find a catering company that could run a trolley on these fast trains (as used to be on offer, even though on an 8-car set it needed two trolleys). I suppose with it being just 45 minutes, and there being countless places to get food/drink before travel, it can't be seen as viable as I am sure First could make money by charging a small fee for the trains to be provided a service, and then a revenue share on the sales.

 

[tbtc]

So, I think that rolling stock is part of the bigger picture. If you were to run LHCS with buffet cars on a Liverpool Street stopper, you couldn't call it InterCity. (You'd call it inappropriate allocation of resources, which is kind of why I find it risible that Cambridge - King's Lynn would have InterCity stock, I just can't imagine a 91 or an IEP stopping at the concrete slabs that constitute Waterbeach, or any of the other small villages on the line, I mean, maybe one of the fast Ely extensions, but I digress). I think that the marginal point that is stopping Cambridge Fliers being InterCity is stock, but that there are situations where the IC stock used for a service does not make said service InterCity (GatEx, Bournemouth - Weymouth stoppers).

Fair point, but you get HSTs linking places like Kingussie and Pitlochry or from Bodmin Parkway to Par or from Mirfield to Brighouse because these are places served at the quieter end of a London train.

125mph isn't needed all the way to King's Lynn, but then a Sprinter can match a Paddington HST through Cornwall and nobody suggests that these are a waste of resources. Well, almost nobody.

 

[Sidious]

So, I think that rolling stock is part of the bigger picture [...] I find it risible that Cambridge - King's Lynn would have InterCity stock. I just can't imagine a 91 or an IEP stopping at the concrete slabs that constitute Waterbeach, or any of the other small villages on the line, I mean, maybe one of the fast Ely extensions, but I digress. I think that the marginal point that is stopping Cambridge Fliers being InterCity is stock, but that there are situations where the IC stock used for a service does not make said service InterCity (GatEx, Bournemouth - Weymouth stoppers).

Hmmm.

Photo Credits: Mike Mccormac

So In the 80's King's Lynn - London LS services looked like this - NOT AN INTER-CITY TRAIN:

...and a train from the same year Hull - London KX services looked like this - AN INTER-CITY TRAIN:

Anyone tell the difference? Well it's pre sectorisation, so both trains belonged to Eastern Region. But both were effectively the same standard of service, so how is one Inter-City and the other not?

Had King's Lynn not gone into NSE, but had been transferred into INTERCITY there would have been three options:

1) Electrify the route like NSE did, and continue with loco hauled stock.
2) Not electrify the route and use loco hauled stock
3) Not electrify the route and use HST sets.

Hmmm indeed... This is a question which will never be answered!

 

[CC 72100]

125mph isn't needed all the way to King's Lynn, but then a Sprinter can match a Paddington HST through Cornwall and nobody suggests that these are a waste of resources. Well, almost nobody.

A sprinter would beat a HST through Cornwall - the reason why nobody suggests that they are a waste of resources is because they are needed. The 150s through Cornwall are regularly full and standing, so the idea of having no through trains and terminating all HSTs at say Plymouth to make sure they're used where they can use their speed wouldn't work and would just turn off passengers from using the train to make long distance journeys.

In fact, FGW are probably more desperate for spare units than HSTs at the moment, so I don't think anyone is too concerned by them being used on through trains down to Penzance & Newquay.

 

[Drsatan]

A sprinter would beat a HST through Cornwall - the reason why nobody suggests that they are a waste of resources is because they are needed. The 150s through Cornwall are regularly full and standing, so the idea of having no through trains and terminating all HSTs at say Plymouth to make sure they're used where they can use their speed wouldn't work and would just turn off passengers from using the train to make long distance journeys.

In fact, FGW are probably more desperate for spare units than HSTs at the moment, so I don't think anyone is too concerned by them being used on through trains down to Penzance & Newquay.

Very true. However, 150s aren't appropriate trains for services along the Cornish Main Line - hopefully FGW (or the next franchise holder) will be able to obtain a few 158s for these services, which may happen when the 165s & 166s are cascaded westwards.

Nonetheless, it would be impractical to curtail services operated by HSTs or other trains capable of 100mph + so that they can run at their maximum speed throughout. For instance, few would want all Cotswold Line services to be cut back to Oxford with passengers having to change trains to a 165, and I doubt commuters from Waterbeach and Kings Lynn would be happy with a forced change of train at Ely or Cambridge.