Probably in a buffet car that is being scrapped.

More seriously, might it be worth merging this thread with the other major thread about catering ?

Does say a sprinter actually burn 4 times as much fuel per mile as an SUV ? That seems surprising to me.
Estimating 30 miles to a gallon for the SUV, does a pacer really only go 7.5 miles on a gallon ?

I have heard, but can not substantiate, that the fuel consumption of a pacer is about the same as an SUV, and therefore that the pacer saves fuel with only two passengers.

Perhaps we need some new 2 car battery multiple units ?

Only a driver is required to move the train, but a guard is on board to check tickets and close the doors.
Also two staff in the buffet which offers a pleasing choice.

I cant speak for Devon, but here in Somersetshire we move with the times.
On the Minehead branch line was recently demonstrated a new type of train, this appears to have no locomotive nor any fireman, but proceeds under the direction of only a driver. It does however make an odd noise and may frighten horses.

Here in North Somerset, bus services have noticeably worsened.
Local employers have got fed up with staff turning up late due to bus problems, and almost all local job adverts now state "must have own transport"

Speaking more generally, I blame a lot of the problems on new housing developments that have no effective public transport provision. Residents of such estates therefore have to drive, often needing multiple cars per household.

There seems to be a general view that new housing developments cant be served with public transport until a proven demand can be demonstrated. By which time of course every resident has purchased a car and got used to driving.
IMHO, new housing developments need an effective bus service from before the first resident moves in.

A comparison could be made with electricity supply. Who would build a new housing estate without an electricity supply ? No one ! Despite the fact that INITIAL electricity demand is probably insufficient to justify the costs.
Similar arguments apply to mains water or roads within the estate.
"here is your new home. Sorry about the walk across a muddy field to get to your front door. But don't worry, we will consider building a road once enough demand exists"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45586492

4 children are reported killed and others hurt after being struck by a train at a gated level crossing.
The young victims were being transported to school in an electric cart operated by an adult. This past under the barrier and was struck by a train.
Some reports state the brakes failed on the electric cart.

I am sure that the bereaved and injured are in our thoughts

At least those units primarily intended for long distance services should have had proper buffet cars.
If they sometimes end up being used on other routes, then so be it.

New allegedly intercity trains without a buffet car is a significant downgrade for 4+ hour journeys. This is not just my view.
IETs for other operators DO have buffets so it looks as though the downgrade was a GWR policy, not the department for transport as is sometimes claimed.
Did Daft REALLY say "passengers headed north are allowed buffets, but those headed west are not allowed buffets" ? I rather doubt it.

Then make them longer, and with a buffet car.
BTW, I suspect that Cotswold commuters would enjoy a buffet, especially for real coffee and fresh cooked bacon rolls in the morning peak, and alcoholic drink in evening peak.

Always downgrade facilities as much as possible. If SOME units allegedly don't need a buffet, then build them ALL without a buffet. No question of course of building them all WITH a buffet, even if this might not be needed on every diagram.

I am aware of at least one case in which a modern EMU was disabled after striking a goose, the impact of which broke an air connection.

So yes it is possible. If such incidents recur regularly then that suggests a need to make the relevant parts of the air system more impact resistant or easier to isolate.
If it was a very rare event, then (goose)shit happens!

But was the pigeon alright ?

Whilst I am pleased to see that the bravery of the man has recognised, £100 seems rather paltry these days.
IMHO an award of at least £1000 would be more appropriate.
In view of the relatively small number of such cases, the total drain on the public purse would not be great.

Hopefully the brave employee will not face any disciplinary action for violating any "non confrontation" or similar policy.
Hopefully the armed attacker will not receive any compensation for violation of his human rights.

BTW, many years ago when I was rather younger and fitter, I tackled an armed thief and was given an award out of public funds, whilst I was honoured to receive this award, the actual amount was considerably less than I lost in wages whilst attending court as a witness.

I agree, hence my limited criticism of this particular incident. Trains old or new DO breakdown, and anything new is more liable to breakdowns initially.
Hitachi will presumably act to improve reliability, they have a strong financial incentive to so do.

I feel that the response to both this recent IET failure, and to the earlier HST failure, could have been better. A poor response is however not the fault of the train, old or new.

My criticism of the IETs is more general, and may be summarised as being a general downgrade from a proper inter-city train to a regional DMU.

HST failures did indeed occur regularly, but this was not comparable  to the present situation with IETs.
A failed HST usually resulted in a FULL LENGTH loco hauled train being substituted, with padded seats, reservations, and a buffet.

Today we get a half length DMU if lucky, or nothing if less lucky.

I, and I suspect many others, would have accepted the IETs if firstly they had been proper inter-city trains, full length, gangwayed throughout, with a buffet car, working reservations, padded seats, and so on, AND if the inevitable initial unreliability had been covered by retaining enough HSTs so as to minimise effects on passengers.

But I thought that the IEPs only have to be paid for when they are available ? The recent levels of non availability should be SAVING GWR a lot of money, some of which they could spend on spot hire or monthly hire of a few HSTs.