I would argue that Hitachi should lengthen a few of the 5 car units to 9 car at their expense.
As compensation to the customer for not meeting the promised levels of availability and the consequent overcrowding.
We fairly regularly see a dozen or more half length trains a day, perhaps three or four diagrams.
Lengthening 4 of the 5 car units to 9 car would greatly reduce short formations.

It might be worth GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) paying for additional lengthening, but it seems reasonable for Hitachi to pay for the first few.

And hitler allegedly had plans for an extensive railway system with a 3 meter gauge, or nearly 10 feet. AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) none was actually built.
That sort of width would permit of 3+3+3 seating in standard and 2+2+2 in first class, or sleepers with a central corridor and transverse beds each side thereof.

In what way does dropping off a passenger only in the designated area improve air quality versus dropping them off in the wrong place?

I could perhaps suggest an alternative signature for those who like IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train).

"5 cars so much better than none. A trolley is far superior to a buffet, and no trolley is better still. Padded seats are bad for you, reservations are not really needed anymore. Embrace the future"

"Defective track" is a bit old school, I thought that the new approved term was "a safety inspection of the track"
Whatever next, an admission that the new trains have engines rather than generating units, or even that a footbridge exists at Reading rather than a transfer deck.

We seem to have moved on from "all services that need to be full length, will be" and towards "half length trains are not that bad, really" Progress I know but still regrettable.
All very voyager like.

I very much doubt that all stations will EVER be fully accessible, or indeed that that all trains will ever be accessible.

If there is any risk of most stations becoming accessible by todays standards, then the standards will have to be updated to require a greater degree of accessibility than is the case today. Trains ditto.

"step free access" could be replaced by a requirement for completely level access from street to interior of train for example. And of course accessibility could be extended to include not just physical access but also announcements and information. More signs for the hearing impaired and more  announcements for the visually impaired. And ever changing standards for both.

Oh dear, glad that I use the trains less.

I am so glad that I now live permanently in the west country with no need for regular travel between London and the west.
Back in the good old days, I would wait in the first class lounge at Paddington, walk across the platform to take my reserved seat in the Pullman, often on the 18-03 as it then was.

These days the "Golden Hind" no longer departs from platform one, not a big issue but still a backward step for a named train.
Reservations are no longer reliably available,  The location of the Pullman is random, accommodation therein is reduced, and the whole journey is to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Tonight's debacle  resulted in no train and appalling crowding on alternative services.

Reports elsewhere suggest a train fault, as an alternative or contributory cause. Very poor show.

I DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) read it properly. A UPS protects not only against complete loss of power, but also against voltage out of tolerance as was reported to be the case.
If the mains supply is present but with an excessively high or low voltage, then a UPS will either correct this via a built in transformer, or will revert to battery power.

Broadgage would certainly support the retention of a few HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) or GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) or elsewhere, not as a long term measure but for a few years until the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) are working properly, with no significant short formations.

So doing has been ruled out on GWR and seems unlikely elsewhere. The general view within the rail industry seems to be that IETs are the future and that short formations are acceptable.

I agree with the verdict of the court. The offences were non-trivial, but also not hugely serious, and the judgement reflects this.
Whilst I have considerable agreement with the concerns and aims of ER, I cant support the disruption of electric public transport, use of which should be encouraged as an alternative to driving a private car.

Does anyone know what happened to the members of the public who removed the protesters from the train roof ? Nothing, I hope.

Was there any effect on electrical equipment outside of the railway ? Or was this another case of railway equipment being highly sensitive to minor electricity supply fluctuations that no one else noticed.

For signalling equipment of such importance, was no standby supply available? At the very least, I would expect a UPS with a battery run time of some minutes, and with a duplicated mains voltage supply into the UPS.

My remarks are indeed speculation, but reasonable speculation based on observation of the ongoing short formations, for over two years now.

It seems to me that GWR HAVE simply lied down, accepted some short forms, and raked in the compensation, for the first two years at least. Sod the passengers, 5 cars is fine, and much better than no train.
This might be changing, but don't count on it.