[Mods: posted in rolling stock because it relates to the change from HSTs to IETs, please do move to a different forum if you think this isn't the right place!]
It looks as if there's yet another reason for one group of people that would otherwise be keen rail users to switch to the car. The lack of luggage storage space on the IETs and other Hitachi GWR rolling stock, when compared to the HSTs they replaced, means that people can no longer travel by train with surfboards. Since these were introduced, they have felt to me like mid-density outer surburban commuter trains, and the lack of facilities (namely in this case facilities for the carriage of larger luggage, but also the absence of a buffet car, and the uncomfortable seats ) for people travelling longer distances for longer stays (as opposed to intra-day travel etc.) have been sacrificed. Maybe it's just a case of it being impossible for a single train to be ideal for the various roles it has to fulfil (it's strongly arguably better for services like that I use most, viz Oxford <-> London expresses, since it has more seats, more space at each seat to use the computer, and faster acceleration), but worse for the holiday traffic …
Realistically, before this year, that was probably the pragmatic thing to do for a fleet that has to cover these very different use-cases. Perhaps some changes to the internal fit-out to redress the balance slightly in favour of long distance / holiday traffic might be considered now, in the light of the substantial reduction in commuter traffic.
It looks as if there's yet another reason for one group of people that would otherwise be keen rail users to switch to the car. The lack of luggage storage space on the IETs and other Hitachi GWR rolling stock, when compared to the HSTs they replaced, means that people can no longer travel by train with surfboards. Since these were introduced, they have felt to me like mid-density outer surburban commuter trains, and the lack of facilities (namely in this case facilities for the carriage of larger luggage, but also the absence of a buffet car, and the uncomfortable seats ) for people travelling longer distances for longer stays (as opposed to intra-day travel etc.) have been sacrificed. Maybe it's just a case of it being impossible for a single train to be ideal for the various roles it has to fulfil (it's strongly arguably better for services like that I use most, viz Oxford <-> London expresses, since it has more seats, more space at each seat to use the computer, and faster acceleration), but worse for the holiday traffic …
Realistically, before this year, that was probably the pragmatic thing to do for a fleet that has to cover these very different use-cases. Perhaps some changes to the internal fit-out to redress the balance slightly in favour of long distance / holiday traffic might be considered now, in the light of the substantial reduction in commuter traffic.
Surfers call on GWR to review board-on-trains ban
GWR imposed the ban after its new trains were redesigned to allow for more seating.
www.bbc.co.uk
[…]Surfers are calling on Great Western Railway to review its policy banning surfboards on trains.
It comes after one surfer said police were called when he was told to leave a train travelling from London to Bristol because he had a board with him.
Jamie Monson said the policy was “crazy”, especially when rail travel is being encouraged.
GWR changed its policy early last year stating surfboards were not be allowed on its intercity express trains.
The company said the new trains no longer had space behind the engine, where boards had previously been stored, to enable them to provide extra seating.
A spokesman for GWR said: “We cannot take surfboards on long-distance trains because there is no feasible, safe storage space on board.
“Surfboards can be taken on our Night Riviera sleeper service from London to Penzance, which has different seating demands and space set aside for storage. We also continue to carry surfboards on local stopping services.”