Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling Chef, Pullman - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[bobm]

Don't often get the chance to try the Pullman breakfast but two early meetings in London gave me the opportunity and initially I wasn't disappointed.

After fruit juice and yoghurt the main course arrived



I could also have had black pudding, beans and tomato - but not to my taste.

With plenty of toast and coffee it was excellent value at ^18.

I say initially I wasn't disappointed - the reason?  The following morning because of set problems at Swansea the meal service was cancelled!



 

[Chris from Nailsea]

Gin, with a tonic water mixer? I'll allow that. 

[bobm]

Gin, with a tonic water mixer? I'll allow that. 

Not telling you about my two Caledonian sleeper trips last week then.....

[Brucey]

The Pullman photographs here have pretty much tempted me to try out the brunch service.  Just need to find a suitable weekday to take off work.

I'm seeing plenty of Cambridge - Cardiff Central fares (for the 10:45 from Paddington) for ^14.95 in standard (or ^15.85 through to Swansea).  What are the chances of getting a seat in the restaurant on this service on a weekday?

[JayMac]

I think you'll be okay Brucey. Let's us know the date you plan if you're going alone. May well find you've got one or two dining companions... 

[bobm]

If you are joining at London Paddington I'd say you'd be fine.

I have joined that train at Swindon half a dozen times and usually had a table of two to myself.

They do two sittings if need be - which means in the unlikely event you don't get a seat first time you will later - also means you might be asked to move back to standard once you have finished.

Brunch is ^18 too same as the breakfast on the up.

[Brucey]

Will do bignosemac, probably won't be until April or May though.

^33.85 (^15.85 + ^18.00) for a 4.5 hour journey plus tube transfer and breakfast seems to be rather good value.

[JayMac]

Not forgetting the posh seats for a large part of the journey.

[TonyK]

But no grog??? Not even a gin and tonic-ette???

I shall open a separate thread about this if no-one else has. For now, the Bristol Post reports the story doing the rounds yesterday:

Drinking on trains could be banned under new proposal from rail safety watchdog

By The Bristol Post  |  Posted: February 24, 2015
 
DRINKING on trains could be banned in a bid to prevent the number of passengers dying from drunkenly falling onto the lines.

Enjoying an alcoholic drink of long distance and inner-city trains could become a thing of the past if measures proposed by a rail safety watchdog after 18 people were killed and almost 250 seriously injured after falling onto the tracks over the past five years. The majority of these were intoxicated.

The proposal was one of a number of ideas put forward by the Rail Safety Standards Board, but opponents say it would be unfair to the thousands of people who drink in moderation while travelling.

The report also reveals that 48 per cent of the fatality risk on the trains occurs during boarding and alighting and that drunkenness was named as a factor in 21 of the 32 deaths in the past ten years.

It also reveals that passengers being distracted by mobile phones and tablets had caused accidents.

[ChrisB]

Better if intoxicated pax were refused travel?......

Nanny State again. How many of those pax were already intoxicated *before* they boarded the train & how many sober & got sufficiently intoxicated while on the train? My bet all of them were the former & this would have little or no benefit.

[chrisr_75]

Better if intoxicated pax were refused travel?......

Nanny State again. How many of those pax were already intoxicated *before* they boarded the train & how many sober & got sufficiently intoxicated while on the train? My bet all of them were the former & this would have little or no benefit.

I've seen both. Part of the reason why I traded my long distance train commute for the car was I was getting fed up with having my peace and quiet disturbed by idiots (mainly in First class, I would add) not being able to drink to moderation and/or maintain a decent level of behaviour when intoxicated. By not serving alcohol on (certain) trains or allowing intoxicated people to travel, the environment would be a whole lot better for everyone else, but quite how you would police that, I do not know! I think it's a pretty sad place to be if you can't manage a couple of hours on a train without getting hammered and being obnoxious!

[broadgage]

Being to able to enjoy a drink before or during a rail journey is to me one of the advantages of train versus road.
I can see the merits of refusing boarding to those who are SERIOUSLY intoxicated, or of refusing to serve more drink on board to those who have already had too much.
I would hope that this is not overdone however, I would be most displeased if refused admission to a train when unfit to drive, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) fit to use public transport.

I fear that drinking is becoming "the new smoking" with large numbers of jobsworths looking for new ways to persecute drinkers.

[ChrisB]

Don't agree - the are a large minority on trains I encounter who could not care one jot about other passengers & get loud & lary....why the bl**dy hell should they?

[chrisr_75]

Being to able to enjoy a drink before or during a rail journey is to me one of the advantages of train versus road.
I can see the merits of refusing boarding to those who are SERIOUSLY intoxicated, or of refusing to serve more drink on board to those who have already had too much.
I would hope that this is not overdone however, I would be most displeased if refused admission to a train when unfit to drive, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) fit to use public transport.

I fear that drinking is becoming "the new smoking" with large numbers of jobsworths looking for new ways to persecute drinkers.

I think what will become the "new smoking" will be those who drink to major excess regularly - they are the ones overwhelming the police, NHS, ambulance services each and every weekend of the year and that type of behaviour places a major burden on those public services. Hopefully, if something is done to discourage the "binge drinkers", it will not be a catch all approach that needlessly punishes those who can enjoy a few tipples in a responsible manner!

[Umberleigh]

Alcohol is my field of research at the moment with Plymouth University. All the academic research points towards the wealthy, professional classes as drinking the most. However, those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to become a nuisance, commit misdemeanours and/or become violent when intoxicated. Thus public health is targeting the less well-off with punitive price measures whilst the better off continue to indulge in Pinot Grigio and G&Ts. But then that's their adult choice, and the vast majority are hard-working tax payers with otherwise healthy lifestyles

There is also a huge disparity between the amount of alcohol sold in this country and the amount we admit to consuming, with 40% of sales unaccounted for. Researchers have found that working class males and professional women are the groups most likely to under-report their drinking, and this is an area of concern, but banning things is never the answer.

I agree that alcohol is progressively becoming the new tobacco, with talk of 'passive drinking' and the definition of binge drinking being reduced downwards over time. There is also a lot of scaremongering by alcohol control bodies, for example by equating moderate drinking with liver damage, whereas the reality is that only 10% of heavy drinking alcoholics develop cirrhosis of the liver.

I'm not saying that alcohol doesn't cause social problems, but punishing the great majority for the actions of the few is always wrong in my book. Sooner or later, responsible drinkers will need to take a stand, because these Puritans have perfected the art of drip-drip campaigning, edging forwards just a little at a time, but with an ultimate goal of virtual prohibition.

Banning drinking on trains because about 20 people out if over 1 billion have an accident is patently unfair, and would have devastating consequences for station concessions and, I imagine, on-board buffets and the Pullman. But don't think it's just going to go away, this is the second time this has been proposed in just two or three years.