-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If every GWR IET has an on board kitchen...
- Thread starter Mogz
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The cost of paying a chef, I guess.
TBH it's an utter waste of seating space, would have been better having them in only a few units and diagramming those onto the restaurant services.
TBH it's an utter waste of seating space, would have been better having them in only a few units and diagramming those onto the restaurant services.
voyagerdude220
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 3,277
I was on the 14:45 Paddington to Swansea in First Class a few weeks ago between Bristol Parkway and Cardiff Central (9-car IET) and was surprised at how busy it was. First Class was about 80% full, although I suppose if there weren't so many tables for four with just one person occupying them in the front First Class carriage, there could have been more space.
I ended up sitting in the very rear carriage, I think the seats were designed for anyone travelling with a wheelchair user, I had plenty of space, although the seats were very hard.
(back on topic!) It lead me to wonder whether the IETs had enough First Class seats, particularly at peak times.
I ended up sitting in the very rear carriage, I think the seats were designed for anyone travelling with a wheelchair user, I had plenty of space, although the seats were very hard.
(back on topic!) It lead me to wonder whether the IETs had enough First Class seats, particularly at peak times.
Non standard units would be a diagramming nightmare. How many extra would be enough to cover the requirement for spares. How would you ensure the spares are in the right place should they be called into use for so few services.
How many extra seats (presumably first class given the location of the kitchen) would be created? The trolley would still need a base somewhere on the train.
No doubt it will be ripped out eventually, with much fanfare about XXX extra seats, perhaps at the next franchise change.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Not really. After all, they have 3 different types as it is (5-car 800, 5-car 802, 9-car 800).
I think only a few of the GWR HST sets had full kitchen facilities so they seemed to manage then.
Doctor Fegg
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,839
And on the Cotswold Line GWR managed with a unique kitchen-less five-car fleet - the 180s. (The buffets were locked OOU in their second coming.)
At the risk of reawakening the perennial "seats to Cornwall" argument, the simplest solution IMO would just have been to have kitchens in the 9-car units and not in the 5-cars.
At the risk of reawakening the perennial "seats to Cornwall" argument, the simplest solution IMO would just have been to have kitchens in the 9-car units and not in the 5-cars.
irish_rail
Established Member
That would of made total sense, but we all know there is more chance of hell freezing over than putting the 9cars onto the proper long distance services. Even GWR must admit now the whole pairs of 5s was poorly thought through. 14 x 9 car 802s all with a kitchen and all other sets, just basic facilities would have fitted the bill nicely. Sadly not to be....
pdeaves
Established Member
Whilst not insurmountable, any change like removing kitchens (in the 800s; the 802s may be different arrangements) would require a contract change with Hitachi, which would mean £££. We are locked into the specification set by DfT and the operator has to do the best it can with what it's got.
SWT_USER
Member
Given the current inability to get units in the right place or run trains at the correct length I wouldn't back GWR/ Hitachi to competently deal with another sub class. You'd probably end up with Pullman dining on a stopper to Reading via Ealing Broadway.
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
So are all of the kitchens fitted out in the same way regardless of the unit type or operator?
For example, what do they do in that great big kitchen space on Transpennine? Lay out the biscuits in a long line ready to put on the trolley? Oh no, there's usually no trolley.
On the subject of hit and miss trolley services, I haven't been on GWR for a few months now, is the catering generally any more reliable nowadays?
For example, what do they do in that great big kitchen space on Transpennine? Lay out the biscuits in a long line ready to put on the trolley? Oh no, there's usually no trolley.
On the subject of hit and miss trolley services, I haven't been on GWR for a few months now, is the catering generally any more reliable nowadays?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The TPE kitchen is I think one window bay shorter. The intention, once the Novas are all in service, is an improved First Class offer more like the proper IC TOCs.
Because the DfT wanted every train to have a full kitchen and didn't consult with the operator as to what they might actually have in mind for the on board catering offer. So on LNER the kitchens will all see use as every train (baring disruption, crew shortages, equipment failure, etc) will be serving hot food. Whist on GWR only a hand full of services will.
I was idly wondering a month or two ago if there aren't going to be some IETs in service whose kitchens have never actually been used...
TPE have a different fit out which takes up less space. I believe there is a plan to offer something more than they do currently in first class but it won't be on the same scale as LNER. HT similar also have a smaller kitchen space because they don't require the full size kitchen.
Apart from all the occasions over the years when they didn't manage to diagram the 'right' sort of HST, or something in the kitchen broke and no other suitably-equipped spare set was available, or was in Plymouth, not at Paddington - so the chefs had to do the best they could with what equipment was still working or with the kit available in the smaller kitchens on other sets.
And that was because the DfT wanted to keep their options open in case any future franchisees wanted to put in a bid for GW services which included an East Coast/West Coast type food service in first class. Fit them out with either a 180-style mini-buffet or a shrunken kitchen like the TPE and HT 802s and that option would not be there, or would be limited in scope.
I suppose we're back to the whole 5 v 9-car issue again. It feels, to me personally, very wasteful to have a massive kitchen on the 5-cars that is hardly ever going to be used. On a 9-car I don't have an objection. But when GWR have been lumbered with so many 5-cars if you want to keep the catering flexibility you don't really have a choice but to fit everything that moves with a kitchen.
irish_rail
Established Member
Indeed. Another short sighted DFT descion which GWR are forced to accept.
Weren't the 802s a GWR decision? The class 800 fleet was DfT-specified but the decision of 802s versus retention of a small number of IC125s for Plymouth/Penzance was left to GWR to work up a proposal wasn't it? And GWR chose to order only 7x 9-car 802s (initially, they added another 7 when it became clear that they would be short of OHLE) rather than a large number of 9-car 802s to offset the DfT-specified mass 5-car order for 800s.
Four types isn't it (you forgot the 9-car 802s)?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, but I'm sure I read here there was pressure from the Government not to make them look bad by giving them e.g. substantially better interiors, buffets etc.
pdeaves
Established Member
As built the 802 had to look like the 800 to give a continuous homogeneous fleet to the travelling public. I expect (but do not know for certain) that politics would make it difficult to change one type without changing the other.
That presumably applies to the interior spec, but it didn't stop GWR ordering some 9-car 802s so presumably they could have chosen to have more 9-car 802s (with the same interiors as the 800s) instead of 5-car 802s.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,494
The original DA2 proposal from the DfT pointed GWR to the 222 units released by MML electrification (remember that?!) as an alternative to HST refurbishment, the original plan for additional 800 units having been junked on cost grounds.
The 222 units were to be used as the 802 units now are, with portion working, as the political imperative (both from the DfT and the local councils) was for the Cornish half hourly service to be introduced as the priority. It was either existing long train IC service or shorter IC trains with the Cornish half hourly - there was no justification for both. The 8 car 222 units were not going to work to Penzance out of season.
When it became clear that the 222 units were not going to be provided and the cost of modifying the HST fleet was going to be astronomic, the 802 units came into picture and that was the option chosen in the end. The split of 5/9 car units reflected the projected service pattern and as the cost per car was still quite a sum, the number of cars ordered (& formations) was closely monitored & had to be justified to the DfT.
The DfT had a major panic on the 802 specification. They could not stomach any change from the class 800 interior specification and made it very plain that they would not sign off the leases if changes were proposed. even the fact that GWR were proposing a (then) different seat colour provoked a discussion.
The 222 units were to be used as the 802 units now are, with portion working, as the political imperative (both from the DfT and the local councils) was for the Cornish half hourly service to be introduced as the priority. It was either existing long train IC service or shorter IC trains with the Cornish half hourly - there was no justification for both. The 8 car 222 units were not going to work to Penzance out of season.
When it became clear that the 222 units were not going to be provided and the cost of modifying the HST fleet was going to be astronomic, the 802 units came into picture and that was the option chosen in the end. The split of 5/9 car units reflected the projected service pattern and as the cost per car was still quite a sum, the number of cars ordered (& formations) was closely monitored & had to be justified to the DfT.
The DfT had a major panic on the 802 specification. They could not stomach any change from the class 800 interior specification and made it very plain that they would not sign off the leases if changes were proposed. even the fact that GWR were proposing a (then) different seat colour provoked a discussion.
Last edited:
Private Baxter
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,789
Currently no 5-car 800 works a Pullman diagram, so the kitchen does feel a bit of a waste, especially when running as a pair.
There are two Pullman diagrams run by 9 car 800s - 1L06 and 1B13, which offer breakfast, and a return brunch.
The Penzance runs use one portion of a ten car 802 (though usually the rear set which doesn't carry on to Penzance, meaning diners travelling beyond Plymouth must get out and change sets - hardly encourages people to use it), whilst the Plymouth only services make use of the 9 car 802s.
There are two Pullman diagrams run by 9 car 800s - 1L06 and 1B13, which offer breakfast, and a return brunch.
The Penzance runs use one portion of a ten car 802 (though usually the rear set which doesn't carry on to Penzance, meaning diners travelling beyond Plymouth must get out and change sets - hardly encourages people to use it), whilst the Plymouth only services make use of the 9 car 802s.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
I'm about to do a hot take (pun not intended), so be aware!
Obviously, I love the idea of hot food and some nice dining on a train, but I don't see it making much economic sense in a way.
Many passengers just want to get from A to B as fast and cheaply as possible. If that means stopping off at pret or WhSmith for some Coffee and a sandwich to eat on the train, so be it. Some want a bit more comfort and quiet to work in, so pay for first class. Yes, some want warm food on the train, but frankly it probably isn't enough to warrant all the space needed for a kitchen.
Right now, the limiting factors for UK rail is mostly capacity, not hot food provision. Until this is resolved, I don't see the food situation getting any better.
Plus, modern stock is expensive, built for high speed, bi-mode operation and getting from A to B asap. That seems to be the priority over interior comforts. If carriages weren't so darn expensive, perhaps more space would be given to dining. But for now, if that space can be used for seats that will be filled with a quite high capacity factor, that seems to be the way forward.
It's a bit like a conversation I had with someone on Facebook the other day about big planes such as the A380 and 747. I too like them and would love to see more, however the future is 777's, A350's and crossing the Atlantic in a narrowbody. It's boring, and definitely not as good, but that's just the economics of the industry
Gerald Fiennes
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 864
As Jozhua, implies hot food on trains is pretty much on the way out as a commercial venture. Even on-board trolley services are highly marginal given the widespread hot drink options at many stations.
We don't know of course what level of service franchise bidders would proposed because, GW hasn't been on a 'proper' franchise contract for almost 10 years (when the DfT accepted that the 2005/06 relet contract -- the last time it was competitively tendered -- wasn't going to work and let GW off the back-end loaded premium that they had bid). It has been a series of short term arrangements ever since.
It's unlikely that the Cornwall trains would retain Pullman dining, unless specified by DfT which effectively it was under DA2 as noted above and continues to be. The DfT wanted kitchens on some of the IET trains for this reason....and would probably want to keep them (unused) to avoid a political debate about levelling up and the South West (NB. Cornwall, in terms of average earnings per annum, is one of the poorest counties in the country...)
Also recall that the 802s are not fully interchangeable with the 800s: they deliver just over 25% more power from each engine and have larger fuel tanks to cope with the Devon Banks.
We don't know of course what level of service franchise bidders would proposed because, GW hasn't been on a 'proper' franchise contract for almost 10 years (when the DfT accepted that the 2005/06 relet contract -- the last time it was competitively tendered -- wasn't going to work and let GW off the back-end loaded premium that they had bid). It has been a series of short term arrangements ever since.
It's unlikely that the Cornwall trains would retain Pullman dining, unless specified by DfT which effectively it was under DA2 as noted above and continues to be. The DfT wanted kitchens on some of the IET trains for this reason....and would probably want to keep them (unused) to avoid a political debate about levelling up and the South West (NB. Cornwall, in terms of average earnings per annum, is one of the poorest counties in the country...)
Also recall that the 802s are not fully interchangeable with the 800s: they deliver just over 25% more power from each engine and have larger fuel tanks to cope with the Devon Banks.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,434
They don’t have larger fuel tanks, because the 800s were all changed, it has been stated by GW insiders posting here many times before.
Ashley Hill
Established Member
I think we went through a lot of this on an earlier thread about buffets on IETs. Yes the kitchens are an expensive waste of space on most services. The dining services are though popular,particularly with business types on expenses. That market is worth exploiting,however a dedicated fleet of 10 9car sets for restaurant services could cover all diagrams plus spare cover. Should one not be available then it would be just like having a small buffet HST and the dining service would not be available on that occasion
irish_rail
Established Member
But the big problem with this is the reluctance to allow 9 car trains on the London Cornwall trains outside of July and August, although I agree with you entirely.
LNER also have class 800s. Were the LNER 800s also modified to have larger fuel tanks or is it only the GWR sets?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,434
I don’t believe so, but haven’t seen definite confirmation. It was done on GWR because so much wiring was postponed. But it’s probably getting away from the main purpose of this discussion.
- Status