Catering provision - IEP / beyond 2017

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

The reluctance to provide a buffet is partly due to the space taken up, removing or downgrading catering will provide more of the famous "thousands of extra seats" Remember that most of the new trains are much shorter than those they are to replace, and that even the full length ones offer only a modest increase if compared to a high density HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

That argument is irrelevant since both the 5-car and 9-car variants of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) are planned to have level 1 catering (full kitchen) on board, taking up space which could be used for seating. The issue is that it takes up seating at the end of the train rather than a coach or two further along, where it could be reached by standard class pax too.

As IndustryInsider said above, we should all be using the 'proper channels' (which I assume involves writing to your MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FirstGW, I've already done the latter and have tried to get at DfT via Passenger Focus as I'm not sure they'll take note if I write to them direct. I wrote to my MP several times about IEP a while ago and plan to do so again to remind him). My letters have mentioned the catering issue, but I've maining focused on an even bigger concern: the over emphasis on 5-car sets. Could anyone who agrees with me please write to DfT/MP/FirstGW also.

Personally, I think the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) fleet should look more like this (diagrams):

• 22x 9-car 'electric'
• 13x 9-car bi-mode
• 8x 5-car bi-mode

I think that would be a vastly more sensible fleet for the GWML than the planned 35 5-car bi-modes. That's 33 diagramed vehicles more than the current plan, but I've come up with the following plan which would release 34 diagrammed vehicles from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) IEP fleet AND provide stock for an electrified MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) without ordering any more new rolling stock (again, the numbers are diagrams):

• 14x IEP 9-car bi-mode (split 4 for MML, 10 for ECML)
• 8x IEP 5-car bi-mode (split equally between ECML and MML)
• 11x IEP 8-car 'electric' (for MML only)
• 14x IEP 9-car 'electric' (for ECML only)
• 26x IC225 (8 for MML, 18 for ECML)

[broadgage]

Not looking good, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) for catering on long distance trains.
It was originally proposed that a limited number of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) would be retained for services to/from the far west, these of course have kitchens located to permit of restaurant service primarily for first class but with steerage admitted if space permitted.

It now appears that a sub-fleet of the new shorter trains is to be built for far west services. Only 7 full length trains are proposed with the great majority being half length.
As the new trains have the kitchen located at the first class end*, it seems unlikely that steerage will be able to dine even if space be available.
Will it even be viable to provide a Pullman service on a half length train ?
Whilst in theory 2 of the new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) could be coupled together, they are not gangwayed so any restaurant will only be available to half of the train.
What if the booking system puts one in the non restaurant end ?

And of course the new trains don't have buffets*, so nothing beyond a trolley for steerage, even on trips of many hours to/from the far west.
Looking more and more like a downgrade rather than an improvement.

*yes I know that the internal layout of the sub fleet has not yet been decided and might in theory include a buffet and kitchen located between first and steerage, but it is not likely to happen is it ?
For some years I have expressed negative views about the new shorter trains, and apologists for the new trains have repeatedly stated that they COULD have buffets.
Well they are now being built, and don't have buffets.
Does anyone really believe that the second lot will be different ?

[stuving]

This is what DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) says about the new mini-franchise in their consultation response:

Food & drink: FGW^▸ (First Great Western)^s research demonstrates research that there is a very strong preference amongst customers for an at-seat trolley service in standard class, rather than a standalone buffet bar. This is because they find it both more convenient, and it removes concerns about the security of luggage or personal items.

Unlike the current fleet, there will be a kitchen on every IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train, which could provide hot and cold food to both first class and standard class customers on all our trains.

During in-service trials last year, FGW reports that 9 out of ten customers believed the trolley improved their journey experience and wanted to see it on more routes. In the same trial more than half of those who bought from the trolley wouldn^t have left their seat to buy something from a buffet car.

This is good for customers, and would also have a positive impact on the viability of the food and drink offer, which would give greater security for staff. In this light it would be difficult for us to implement any other solution.

It is anticipated that more, rather than fewer, staff would be needed to operate a trolley service, particularly on a 10 car (2 x 5 cars) formation IEP. For this solution to work effectively FGW would need to recruit additional on-board staff and indeed we currently expect an increase in on board FTE of approximately 100 over the Direct Award period.

Why does that say "it would be difficult for us to implement any other solution"? Who "us"? DfT don't implement - maybe they lifted a bit of an FGW report and didn't adapt it.

(Yes, it is a duplicate post.)

[broadgage]

Translation.

"after implying for some years that the new trains WOULD have buffets, and then that they COULD have buffets, and then that buffets COULD BE RETROFITTED, we have now had to admit that they DONT have buffets. Therefore we have produced some carefully rigged survey results that show people actually prefer not to have a buffet"

The purpose of such surveys is not to find out what the customers want, it is to justify decisions that have already been taken on the grounds that "it is what customers want, surveys show it"

[Rhydgaled]

"after implying for some years that the new trains WOULD have buffets, and then that they COULD have buffets, and then that buffets COULD BE RETROFITTED, we have now had to admit that they DONT have buffets. Therefore we have produced some carefully rigged survey results that show people actually prefer not to have a buffet"

In fairness to them, when I saw the pictures of the first unit's driving vehicles being unloaded I think that the 'buffets COULD BE RETROFITTED' claim might actually be true. Unlike the mk3 buffet cars, the windows seem the same on the 1st class kitchen driving vehicle as on the standard class driving vehicle, just with what could be white card behind the glass. Am I right? If so, maybe the kitchen can be moved within the train? Still, the 'they don't have buffets' statement is also, sadly, true.

And I say the above despite my outrage at FirstGW's decision not only to propose underfloor engined units, despite their MD saying back in 2011 that stakeholders considered class 222s unacceptable for the route in part because of underfloor engines, but to suggest that most should be 5-car 'sardine midgets' too. The Great Western seems to be a poor relation to the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), where there is to basiclly be a 9-car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) for every replaced 2+9 IC125/225 set with 5-car units enlarging the fleet. Meanwhile, the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) looks like getting only 25 9-car IEPs to replace getting on for 50 IC125s.

[IndustryInsider]

Not looking good, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) for catering on long distance trains.

Sadly I have to agree that the days of a nice buffet counter on services out of Paddington appear to be numbered.  A retrograde step in my opinion to only offer a trolley to Standard Class passengers - although it will no doubt be a better catering solution for some passengers,  the range and quality of the food and drink is likely to suffer as a result.

[ChrisB]

Pax will get used to bringing their own where necessary - which, according to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), most are already doing.