I agree. I can foresee proper railway managers deserting GWR for the exciting new opportunities offered by the new West Coast operation.
Mark Hopwood for example. Whilst I disagree with some of the views of Mr Hopwood, he is IMO^▸ (in my opinion), to be commended for joining this forum and answering questions.
He also appears to understand railways, which is more than can be said for some managers, who believe that possession of an MBA* means that they can run ANY business, without knowing much about it.

*Master of Business Administration, a type of degree often held by young keen managers with little knowledge of the business that they are running.

I would expect fares to rise in line with inflation, and don't mind paying a bit more for actual improvements. Unfortunately, I and many others consider that things have not improved recently, and on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have actually got worse in many respects.

We keep hearing how efficient the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) are without space wasted on features previously provided on intercity trains, so should not fares be reduced without all that wasted space ?
Likewise we hear how efficient it is to run a pair of 5 car units between London and Plymouth, with a single unit west of Plymouth. Presumably this great improvement in efficiency should be reflected in reduced fares.

In my view, many longer duration journeys DO need longer trains than those used at present.
Comfort and facilities become more important as journey times increase, and providing these requires a longer length train.
Also peak passenger numbers need considering, not just averages. Suppose that a short journey is operated by short trains with 200 seats and an average passenger count of 150. That might imply a fair bit of standing at busy times, which is far from ideal but arguably just about acceptable for a short journey.

If however the same 200 seat train is used for a 2 or 3 hour journey with an average passenger count of 150, then that is likely to be regarded as too short by those have to stand for hours, rather than for minutes.

Also breakdowns happen, whether of the train itself or infrastructure problems. On a local service, standing for 20 or 30 minutes on the following train is just about acceptable. On a journey of several hours, standing on the following train is not really acceptable.

There are of course services for which short trains are ample, but there are also IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) far too many short trains running on routes that should have longer trains.

I am in general opposed to the building of any more short trains, unless some truly exceptional need for these can be demonstrated.
It seems to me that considered nationally, that we have plenty of short trains but not enough longer ones.
Suppose as an example, that a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) perceives a need for some new 4 car or 5 car trains. I would prefer that they make use of some of the EXISTING voyagers or IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train), and that new full length trains be built to replace some of these.

As a currently relevant example, it is now becoming fairly widely admitted that the order for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) IETs included too many 5 car units. It has also been suggested that people like me should not criticise this because it is a done deal and cant be altered.
If another TOC wants perhaps a dozen 5 car IETs, then in my view another 6 full length units should be built for GWR and 12 half length units transferred to where needed.
The 6 nine car units should be cheaper to build than 12 units each of five cars. 54 vehicles instead of 60 for a start, a 10% saving.

Young sir, you are at times prone to exaggerate a little.
The side of beef would soon spoil in the recent heat.
Port in the cask should not be moved as the sediment is thereby disturbed.
Even with aid of the local militia, I could not obtain a private compartment as new trains don't have compartments.
GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) cant even manage surfboards, let alone sedan chairs.

What is the paid for drinks service like these days, weekdays in first class ?

My two most recent experiences were rather unfavourable, but I travel less these days so my experiences might not be representative.
Hoping for some paid for gin, with some free orange juice and hopefully some ice cubes.

And with winter assuredly approaching, perhaps coffee with brandy Or even hot chocolate with brandy, not for myself but I know someone who greatly enjoys this.

I fear so, it is called progress. I expect that the survey to justify the end of buffets on this route has already been done.
Elsewhere on these forums we have seen the strong opposition to buffets expressed by senior First group management.
And the views expressed by many members that there is no point in arguing about this, because it is a done deal and is permanent at least for the life of the present franchisee, and possibly for the life of the trains.

Prepare for a similar change on the West coast route.
Followed by complaints when the greatly improved trolley service turns out to be anything but.
Then after a couple of years, the publication of various plans to improve the trolley service to that which was promised.
Followed by suggestions that people like me should stop complaining because it is a done deal.

Whilst the world has indeed changed in the intervening years, I am not convinced that if DMUs with underfloor engines were considered unsuitable for long distance routes 10 or 20 years ago, that they have now become suitable.
I am well aware that the IETs can also use electric power, but they ARE equipped with underfloor engines, and ARE propelled thereby for the great majority of a journey to Plymouth or beyond.

Likewise on train length, If 5 car Adelantes were considered inadequate years ago, I am not convinced that 5 car IETs are now suitable.

It is not me in the picture. Train looks like Looks like a networker, or something very similar. No buffet on networkers. A few have first class.
The longer distance networkers were intended to have a mini buffet, as they were replacements for the slam door "kent coast" stock which had full buffets.
I think that the picture MIGHT show the area intended for mini buffet. Note the non standard bulkhead behind one row of seats. And of course the power socket which AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) is not intended for customer use.
And BTW^▸ (by the way), an electric fan wont cool sandwiches or beer under any normal circumstances.

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) it was the new Thameslink EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) that could not be re-started after the failure without an engineer.
Some reports suggest that these units trip out on low line frequency so as to prevent the potential generation of harmonics that might interfere with the signalling.
The traction package was probably only tested over a narrow range of line frequency, and then someone decided that "you cant have too much safety" and that everything should stop if the line frequency was outside of the limit.

Although other electric trains work without this feature, it might be a struggle to convince the health and safety industry that this "safety feature" can be removed.

I will admit to having plugged an electric fan into an onboard socket on a train ! Against the rules no doubt but it was VERY hot. Uses less power than many laptops, so I doubt that I broke anything.

I fear that last Fridays outage may well be a sign of things to come. Not very frequent but more often than in past. It is over ten years since the last similar failure. But I bet that the NEXT similar failure will be in a lot less than ten years.

The growth in wind and solar power is most welcome from an environmental point of view, but is a backward step as regards grid stability and reliability.
For this and other reasons I have long felt that all new electric trains should have a battery or diesel engine for failures.
Whilst I don't think much of IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train), a great merit of the electric versions is the single diesel engine.

I would use local trains more if we had any ! Nearest station is Minehead. Most years we have no regular through trains, this year we have a handful but only for a few days a year.

I used to use longer distance trains a lot more than I do now. I now avoid all but essential train travel due to the new trains. I am not fit enough to stand between Taunton and London, reserving a seat does not help as the reservations are unreliable and voided if a half length train turns up.
The hard seats and effective absence of catering also put me off.

Walk up fares are hugely expensive, and discounted advance tickets of little use to me as they carry the risk of the chosen date being a bad train day with disruption caused by events during which the railways used to operate normally.

Recently a friend visited and stayed a few nights. They drove from London "because the trains are so bad" And they could have used the train for free being railway staff.

Not easy to choose in some cases.
For example I have NOT selected safety, not because I feel that safety is unimportant, but because I feel that that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) trains are already safe enough, and I would not want too many more extra safety features that add to costs and perhaps price people onto the less safe roads.

And of course so many of the questions are interconnected, If trains ran reliably and frequently, then station facilities would be relatively unimportant since little time would be spent at the station. If however the train service is infrequent or unreliable, then station facilities are of relatively greater importance.

In my view, by far the most important issue is capacity/train length. Followed by train comfort, then reliability, then frequency of service, then catering, then on board facilities (which I presume does not include catering, as that has a separate entry)
Some members may be surprised that I have not put catering first ! But train length is IMO^▸ (in my opinion) of greater importance, though of course these two issue are again interrelated. Long distance trains should in my view be long enough to have seats for all AND catering, not one or the other.

In the longer term, with a growing population and more emphasis on rail rather than driving or flying, we need to plan for much longer trains. We cant carry on forever with infrastructure sized for the needs of a hundred years ago, or in many cases actually reduced from that existing previously.
I am not suggesting 18 car trains to the West country just yet ! but the need for such is in my view within sight.

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) there was not any plan to fit IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) with "transit sized" engines to limp home.
What WAS planned was that IETs would have a standard type of engine across the various IET variants. The true bi mode units have multiple engines so as to give a performance under diesel power suitable for daily main line operation.
The nominally electric units have just a single engine of the same type, for limited performance when the electric power is not available.
All the IETs for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are of the bi mode type with multiple engines, 3 engines on the 5 car units.

Some of the IETs for use by other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are the nominally electric variant, with but a single engine for emergency use. IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) they can reach about 30 MPH on this single engine, most useful in case of emergency but obviously far short of the performance needed for regular use.

Agree, they really need UPS systems and other back up power supplies for signalling control centers.
And whilst I don't think much of the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) for reasons given elsewhere, they DO have the merit of being able to proceed when the power fails.
IMO^▸ (in my opinion), all new electric trains should have either a small diesel engine or a battery so as to permit of low speed operation to the next station, OR to power the air conditioning if unable to proceed.