• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How could long-distance trains be improved?

Status
Not open for further replies.

VTPreston_Tez

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
If there was say, a Kyle of Lochalsh to Penzance line, how could the trains be improved? I would suggest a luxury service with very comfy seats where possible, a big shop, and other things of the sort. It's not very thought out but I'd like to see your opinions on such a long distance train and what they could do to make it luxury :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

dzug2

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2011
Messages
867
The idea - utter lunacy.

It could be something like the Royal Train though.
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Nottingham
I've always thought it might be an idea once Mk3 stock becomes surplus to refit some as compartment stock to be used at weekends to appeal to families. Probably uneconomical.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,857
I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. Where would there be driver swaps if my stupid ideas became reality?

Inverness, Perth, Edinburgh, then dependant on route, Preston OR Newcastle and Derby, then New St, Bristol Temple Meads and Plymouth. That's all approximate, but it will be something along those lines.
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
711
as a passenger the only really important things as far as i'm concerned for any long distance train...
is that it has enough WORKING toilets, and that its sensibly priced ie. not £250 for a 100 mile journey

anything else is just "would be nice to have"

for an operator, obvously they want to be able to safely carry as many fare paying passengers as possible.. and ensure that they get repeat business
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Comfy seats? Madness!
How could long distance trains be improved? Replace Voyagers with a new design of loco hauled stock. Job done.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Comfy seats? Madness!
How could long distance trains be improved? Replace Voyagers with a new design of loco hauled stock. Job done.

What, and have worse reliability and slower timings?

Say what you like about them, but you can't deny that Voyagers are faster and more reliable than what they replaced.



No wait, have I turned this into another Voyager thread? I'm sorry. Won't happen again.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
What, and have worse reliability and slower timings?

Say what you like about them, but you can't deny that Voyagers are faster and more reliable than what they replaced.



No wait, have I turned this into another Voyager thread? I'm sorry. Won't happen again.

Why should it be worse reliability, with new locos, e.g. Vossloh diesels and Bombardier/Siemens electrics? Slower timings maybe, but is that really that important? Is anyone really that bothered if you can get from Manchester to Bristol 12 minutes quicker on a V*****r than you could with the Old Trains? That's just propaganda from Virgin. Besides, modern stock could run at 125 mph easily, and the superior acceleration of Multiple Units is onloy really that important on commuter routes or where you're at the absolute limit of line capacity.
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,983
That's the best bit about it. With driver changes at Waverley and Birmingham, it may be able to work.

Are you actually serious or do you just enjoy winding people up and spouting rubbish?

It's not a case of "it may be able to work", more like this a loony idea I dreamt up in the classroom and I feel I must qualify my inane gibberish with "I have done some research on this area" which is utter bollocks too.

If you don't know the answer to a question, then don't make something up. If you want a question answered, expect to met with derision if it's a stupid question. A case of crying wolf too many times...
 

ChrisCooper

Established Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
1,787
Location
Loughborough
As a serious suggestion I wonder if a 3 class system might work on longer distance services. As well as the current standard and first there would be an intermediate class intended to be for longer distance travellers. It would have low density, more comfortable seating, more tables, a more relaxing interior (including dimmer lighting, and adjustable reading lights, more like on coaches and planes) and a better buffet or at seat service. It could even have compartments and facilities for families (for example small play areas for children), and of cource extra luggage space. Price would be much higher than standard for short distances (or even not available), but would reduce in relative terms as distance increased to the point where for a long distance journey price would be basically the same as standard is now. Standard class would have higher density seating, few tables, at best a basic trolley service, all well suited to short distance users. It would help to solve the problem where many Intercity services (especially Cross Country) get both a mix of short distance travellers, perhaps doing 10-30min journies, and long distance travellers going for a few hours. Oviously the ratio of standard class to the enchanced standard would depend on the number of passengers who travel longer distances compared to short hops, but I would say at most it would be 1/4 of the train enchanced and 1/2 standard (with the other 1/4 first).
 

VTPreston_Tez

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
As a serious suggestion I wonder if a 3 class system might work on longer distance services. As well as the current standard and first there would be an intermediate class intended to be for longer distance travellers. It would have low density, more comfortable seating, more tables, a more relaxing interior (including dimmer lighting, and adjustable reading lights, more like on coaches and planes) and a better buffet or at seat service. It could even have compartments and facilities for families (for example small play areas for children), and of cource extra luggage space. Price would be much higher than standard for short distances (or even not available), but would reduce in relative terms as distance increased to the point where for a long distance journey price would be basically the same as standard is now. Standard class would have higher density seating, few tables, at best a basic trolley service, all well suited to short distance users. It would help to solve the problem where many Intercity services (especially Cross Country) get both a mix of short distance travellers, perhaps doing 10-30min journies, and long distance travellers going for a few hours. Oviously the ratio of standard class to the enchanced standard would depend on the number of passengers who travel longer distances compared to short hops, but I would say at most it would be 1/4 of the train enchanced and 1/2 standard (with the other 1/4 first).

In this case you would definitely need a big train (12 cars; 3 first, 6 second, 3 third would be best) but I like the idea and was also thinking of it.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
When I opened this thread I wondered how long it'd take before it turned into a Voyager/DEMU bashing thread.

I think what's more important than the whole DEMU vs LHCS debate is the internal layout and economic factors, such as access charges.

I would say that access charges are probably contributing a lot to the chronic overcrowding of certain trains in the UK. After all, TOCs are profit making companies and would rather maximise their profits by having short, crammed trains than having longer trains with lighter loadings. There is no incentive to do otherwise.

Also the taxes etc. on diesel fuel probably do not help. It's rather ridiculous that aircraft, which are far less efficient than trains, have no tax or duty on them.

As far as internal layouts are concerned, I think there needs to be a good compromise between capacity and open layout. Seats need to be high backed but not to the extent they block ambient light. Table/window alignment would be nice, but not necessarily mandatory.

I'm sure I could think of more, and make it more coherent, but I digress.
 

VTPreston_Tez

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Messages
1,159
Location
Preston
When I opened this thread I wondered how long it'd take before it turned into a Voyager/DEMU bashing thread.

I think what's more important than the whole DEMU vs LHCS debate is the internal layout and economic factors, such as access charges.

I would say that access charges are probably contributing a lot to the chronic overcrowding of certain trains in the UK. After all, TOCs are profit making companies and would rather maximise their profits by having short, crammed trains than having longer trains with lighter loadings. There is no incentive to do otherwise.

Also the taxes etc. on diesel fuel probably do not help. It's rather ridiculous that aircraft, which are far less efficient than trains, have no tax or duty on them.

As far as internal layouts are concerned, I think there needs to be a good compromise between capacity and open layout. Seats need to be high backed but not to the extent they block ambient light. Table/window alignment would be nice, but not necessarily mandatory.

I'm sure I could think of more, and make it more coherent, but I digress.

That's pretty much summed up what trains will be like in 10 years.
 

jones_bangor

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
856
Comfy seats? Madness!
How could long distance trains be improved? Replace Voyagers with a new design of loco hauled stock. Job done.

Voyagers aren't that bad!

The imminent release of Mk 3 stock does offer lots of opportunities though.

Strikes me that there's a need for a new class of locomotive with the same route availability as a Class 37 to serve "secondary" stations.
 

DXMachina

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2011
Messages
652
the price per mile has to be competitive with the cost of driving there (fuel plus maintenance). Effectively this means ticket prices are orders of magnitude too high. I can't afford to use trains for long runs despite doing them regularly.

So there's my answer: Cut the ticket prices.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,858
the price per mile has to be competitive with the cost of driving there (fuel plus maintenance). Effectively this means ticket prices are orders of magnitude too high. I can't afford to use trains for long runs despite doing them regularly.

So there's my answer: Cut the ticket prices.

But that would increase demand which would require more trains which requires more money be spent and judging by the past experience on the railway it would be public money, which is politically impossible at this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top