A commonsense way of defining a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would in my view be as follows.

Powered primarily by one or more diesel engines that are contained within the passenger carrying vehicles. (usually under the floor, but elsewhere in the same vehicle, as in a Hampshire unit is still a DMU)
An electric IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) is NOT a DMU because it although it DOES have a diesel engine in a passenger vehicle, it is not primarily powered thereby.

By this common sense definition IETs are DMUs, even the 9 car ones that dont normally run in multiple.

HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are not thus considered to be DMUs since the engines are in separate vehicles not normally used by passengers. And no, an HST does not suddenly become a DMU if passengers stand in the power car.

I have avoided unduly frequent comment about the above.
However a great many people consider IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) to be a downgrade, in regard to seating comfort, catering provision, luggage space in general, and cycles and surfboards in particular.

Many people consider that HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were proper inter city trains, with padded seats, buffets, luggage space, and general quality. The new units have been widely compared to local trains, not inter city trains.

There seems to be a reluctance to admit that the new units are DMUs, but they ARE equipped with underfloor engines, and they ARE powered thereby for most of the journey to Plymouth or beyond. So on what basis should they considered as not being DMUs ?

I wonder if someone at First Group has been told off for the bad timing of this downgrade.
What should have been done would have been to ban surfboards at least 5 years ago, and perhaps longer ago.
Then they could have blamed the surfboard ban on "better meeting customer needs". But now people (like me) are blaming it on the downgrade from proper inter city trains to 5 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)

And this is not self interest, I am much too old and fat to consider use of a surfboard. Such items should however be carried on inter city trains, especially those that serve holiday destinations popular with surfers.

 

Not really, the full kitchen space is needed for Pullman service.

Perhaps the "big floaty thing" is the spaceship containing the aliens whom have decided to invade Felixstowe instead of Harwich.

Meal service is indeed over by about Exeter.
However for passengers going beyond Plymouth, having to change at, or before Plymouth is a powerful disincentive to use of the Pullman.
Likewise in the up direction, having to board the 5 car unit at anywhere west of Plymouth, and then alight and move to the other portion is backward step. Especially when the second unit fails to arrive/function. (as those in the know all pile into what is now the only unit to London, those who had alighted in hope of dining will now have to stand.)

And as for the depot at Penzance only taking 5 cars, a cynic like me would suspect that the intention was to use primarily 5 car units, so no point in a depot that can take a full length train.
It was certainly implied that 9 cars units would be used for Pullman services, but that I suspect was simply a ploy to mollify people like me, and not actually what was intended.
A bit like all the grand promises made about the trolley, none of which were regularly achieved.

I consider that the present arrangement is fine.

BTW^▸ (by the way), I am a member of another forum (not rail related) in which threads are locked after a certain time. This is IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) a poor choice as numerous threads get started on the same subject.

Yes.
Near the beginning of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) saga, I and others doubted the suitability of a pair of 5 car units Pullman services. Advocates of IETs suggested that full length units would be used for Pullman services and the kitchens in the shorter units were to provide the at seat hot snacks from the new improved trolley. (now sunk without trace)

Then it was discovered that a full length unit wont fit the depot at Penzance and that most services thereto would be 5 car.
Restaurant only available to half the train.
Limited non dining first class seats in the dining portion.
Restaurant customers going west of Plymouth have to alight thereat and walk along the platform to the other portion.

For the foreseeable future, there will be a demand for overseas holidays for the reasons given of visiting historic places or hoping  to see a particular person.

However a lot of holidays are primarily for sun, sea, sand and booze. Such breaks COULD be taken in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and some more  WOULD be taken in the UK if travel was easier, and refreshment was cheaper.

Rail travel is seen as hugely complicated, and very expensive. Look at some of the threads on this forum regarding the validity or not of certain tickets.
No such complications for a package holiday to Spain. Advertised at a certain price, pay this price and off you go.
Split ticketing ? not needed.

I prefer the revival of old threads to the starting of a new thread on the same or a very similar subject.
Keeps the discussion in one place.

If I have something to say, I search for an existing thread to which my comments could be added, rather than start a new one.

A good example being my recent comment on surfboards not being allowed on IETS. In the news recently, and worth adding to an existing thread IMO^▸ (in my opinion), but not worth starting a new thread.

I would reduce prices as earlier described, but also have a bit more law enforcement.
I doubt that my proposed reductions in prices of draught and SOME bottled beer would make the herds of young drunks much worse. I think that they mainly drink spirits and trendy imported bottled beers. Neither would be reduced in price under my proposals.
Neither would port.

I would also reduce the duty charged on beer and cider in standardized, deposit charged, returnable bottles, subject to the following conditions.

1) The bottles must be of a standard type, fully interchangeable between different suppliers.
2) Made of recycled dark colored glass.
3) Only 3 sizes to be permitted, 275ml, 550ml, and 1 liter.
4) These bottles to be supplied in returnable crates, these may coloured as desired but must be a standard design, intended to withstand at least 200 round trips.
5) A deposit of 25 pence for the two smaller sizes, and 50 pence for the larger size, and five pounds per empty crate to be charged.

If I were in charge, that is exactly what I would do.
I would reduce the duty on draught* beer, cider and similar drinks, which would also reduce the environmental harm resulting from the careless disposal of cans and bottles.

*To avoid attempts at evasion, "draught" would have be carefully defined, I would suggest the following.
If a product is to benefit from the lower duty rate applicable to draught products, then all the following conditions must be satisfied.
1) The drink must be supplied in reusable containers with a minimum capacity of 40 liters.
2) These containers must be of durable construction and designed to last for at least 200 round trips.
3) If these containers are supplied to anyone other than a licensed bar, then a deposit of at least ?25 must be charged.

Airlines are indeed very restrictive WRT^▸ (with regard to ) luggage, however trains should perhaps be better than airlines, rather than seeking to become as bad.

My understanding is that "three items of luggage" are indeed allowed, but that only one "large" item is permitted, such as a suitcase or rucksack, with two small items such as plastic shopping bags.
I recall a case shortly after the then Virgin Cross Country introduced new shorter trains. A passenger was turned away for carrying four supermarket shopping bags "the rules limit you to three items, you have exceeded that"
In the good old days, four shopping bags would have been fine if less than 50 kilos in total weight.

For long distance services likely to convey holiday makers, the carrying of bulky luggage is part of running a railway, even if not directly profitable.