Great Western Coffee Shop

From The News, Portsmouth (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/train-operator-south-western-railway-scraps-its-onboard-catering-putting-130-jobs-risk-3062668)

Well what a surprise ! I seem to recall that my crystal ball forcast this when first group took over.
Nothing like a pandemic or other emergency to make down grades.

I can remember when many longer distance services from Waterloo had proper buffets, downgraded to a trolley service and then furthur downgraded to nothing.

The West of England "main" line. Now a single track branch, worked by DMUs, no catering.

And so called intercity services that connect with cruise liners at Southampton. An ordinary suburban EMU, no catering, no accomadation for bulky luggage as is taken on a cruise. Welcome to the UK !

There is a general "race to the bottom" on UK railways, though first gruop are particularly good at this. I presume that a survey showed that catering is no longer needed.

Not surprising given the lack of enthusiasm of some catering staff. On a couple of trips to Portsmouth pre-pandemic I didn't buy any refreshments at Waterloo to save having to carry them and luggage onto the train. It was an hour into the journey before the trolley operator bothered to move from the end of the train.

I have had similar negative experiences, on trains from Waterloo to Salisbury and beyond.
A particular problem on that route is the use of non gangwayed DMUs, such that even if a trolley is provided it is only available to part of the train, and not exactly enthusiastically provided in even that portion.

I am not convinced that ANY TOC is serious about trolley provision, it seems to be regarded as an intermediate step between a proper buffet and the long term aim of nothing.


 

For "is", I suspect you intended to write "was".  The last none-gangwayed stock on SWT (as it was in those days) were the 170s that headed up north in 2006.  In this context, perhaps we should look for more contemporary experience for the majority of the colouring of our views - trollies have been going through (but perhaps reluctantly for a decade and a half)

I thought that Waterloo to Exeter services were operated by class 159s ? In which the trolley is only available to half of a 6 car train. A bit like IETs, though at least the seats on a 159 are padded.

159s are corridored.  Only the 170s weren't.   Don't think they're shut off.

There's been some talk on this forum about the renewed emphasis, post covid, on the notion of the growth of railway journeys as a leisure pursuit in future such as the "Staycation Express" etc.  It might be here where the concept of the traditional buffet may increasingly find a new role, perhaps to the point of a more general revival over time. Preferences change, who knows?

Though i would like to get a trolley though the connection between unit, from memory, its not ver smooth, the port bottle may fall off and smash!
Possibly a union requirment perhaps on elf and safety grounds.

Perhaps the inter unit connections are no longer regularly used.
I have been on a 6 car train to Salisbury with the trolley only available in the other unit.

If the railway industry are serious about encouraging leisure and holiday travel within the UK, then that will need proper full sized hot buffets not a microbuffet, or a static trolley. And tables, and seats that align with windows, and space for holiday luggage including cycles and surfboards, perhaps even padded seats.
In short largely a return to the train designs of 50 years ago. Nothing wrong with SOME modern innovations such as power doors, retention toilets, WiFi, and air conditioning, and higher speeds.
But most aspects of train design need to look to the past, rather than the present/recent policies of "what downgrades can we get away with"

I'd be interested in data you have which demonstrates that people cite the availability of a "proper full sized hot buffet" as a determinant in choosing to travel by rail as you so frequently suggest however I suspect that the rhetoric is not borne out by reality.

50 years ago the alternative catering/take away food options did not exist in anything like the number they do now, providing better quality, healthier and more diverse food at far better value for money.

It is not just me who considers that long distance trains should have a proper buffet. Quite a few members of these forums support the idea. And looking furthur afield, a common complaint about new trains on trip advisor and similar sites is "and not even a buffet"  or that "the buffet was closed throughout" (from those who presume that there was a buffet but that it was closed)

At the risk of generalising in the SWR board ... what is a "long distance journey" anyway? Accepting that on-train catering is a good idea for a long distance journey, has our definition of a long distance journey changed? Does a decrease in journey time, and an increase in frequency, change the journey characteristic such that what used to be "long distance" emotionally no longer is?

Here are (sorry - GWR example) Paddington to Plymouth timetables from 1902 just before the Castle Cary to Taunton cutoff was opened, in the late 1960s at a low point for rail, and as scheduled from Monday.


Further question - what proportion of people on those trains in 1902 and 1967 were going all the way from London to Plymouth (perhaps beyond) and how does that compare with today? 

I am prepared to sit / work / sleep / relax with minimal refreshments for 3 hours - 2020.  For a 5 hour journey, I might want rather more in terms of refreshments (especially if the 1902 trains didn't even have an Internet connection).

In my view, a proper buffet should be considered for journys of over an hour and should be the norm for two hours or more.
It is the time taken and not the distance in miles that is relevant.
I dont think that the frequency of the service is relevant.
Many outer suburban journys used to have buffets, and still should in my view.

For journeys over about 3 hours a restaurant should be considered, on selected journeys.

I'm 100% sure the 1902 trains Didn't have Internet connection, nor did the 1967 trains, but the 1967 trains in most cases would have had a corridor connection throughout.  ;D

The 1967 trains would not only have almost certainly had a through corridor, but would also have had a buffet, and possibly a restaurant, and a luggage van, and all or most seats at tables, and padded seats, and all seats with a window.
Facilities now considered unreasonable or unaffordable.
We cant criticise the 1967 trains for absence of WiFi that was not yet invented. Nor can we criticise the absence of air conditioning or power doors, which HAD been invented but not in general use.

As regards passenger facilities and comfort the 1967 train was in my view preferable.

From the RMT (https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-welcomes-mps-support-for-swr-campaign/)

I seldom agree with the RMT, but this is an exception.
Providing a buffet should be part of running long distance trains even if not directly profitable. A trolley is a poor substitute for a proper buffet, but still better than nothing.

Plans (up North, again ...)

From Rail Advent (https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/03/skipton-to-carlisle-plans-plus-hst-with-new-livery-for-rail-charter-services-in-2021.html)

From UK Rail News (https://www.ukrailnews.com/news/RCSLSLHST)

I agree with the gist of your post, but not with the priorities. For me, the first thing is making the passenger comfortable - that means padded seats, availability of toilets and legroom. Just as important is alignment with windows (particularly for bays of seats around tables, which need to ensure ALL passengers sitting in them have an unobstructed view (sorry class 153s) and on most trains need to be increased in number). Get those basics right before worrying about cycles, WiFi, buffets and surfboards (probably in that order).

I agree that it is the time taken and not the distance in miles that is relevant, but that applies more to the things like tables and legroom I was discussing above than to buffets. For me, all trains intended to provide passenger journeys (distinct from train journeys - if no passenger is expected to stay on a stopping train for it's whole trip (eg. because it is overtaken by a faster service) then the full journey time of the train doesn't count) of over an hour should have ample legroom (more than is provided currently on most UK trains) and a trolley. A buffet is a harder one - it clearly is alot more expensive to provide than a trolley and I don't want large fare rises to pay for it or to waste fuel carting around an unused kitchen/buffet area. Whereas legroom is something that I think every passenger making a journey of over an hour should be entitled to expect, I think a buffet should only be provided when there is sufficient potential demand. 'Potential demand' in this case is passengers making a long journey - the longer that is the heavier weight is put on that passenger in the equasion. Providing a buffet car on the 5-car Cardiff-Portsmouth train is unlikely to be a workable prospect, but if you cannot justify a buffet on a 9-car intercity service out of Paddington something is wrong somewhere (in the case of the IETs, they have a kitchen on even the five car sets, but this is stupidly located burried in first class where any potential standard class diners cannot access it which reduces the potential demand - it should perhaps have been on 9-car units only and in a middle coach, not the driving car, with a buffet counter added).

In any case, the train needs to be gangwayed throughout so that the guard can check your ticket (and point out if you're in the wrong part of the train for your destination, or advise what platform your connection will leave from if it's going to be tight) and the trolley can get through or you can get to the buffet (if provided).