I do apologise that I've not been a massive fan of this insanely expensive project (that's got even more expensive with converting all to bi-modes but the DFT won't say how much more because it's probably embarrassing). Or is it a forum rule that we have to all be fans of the IEP project.
Philip I completely respect your points of view but I considering the sheer cost of these trains it should be absolutely perfect with massive gains in performance and capacity. Just moving things on a little bit is frankly a bit ridiculous when other lines move things on a little bit for far far cheaper. I mean the PAC were scathing over the costs of the project.
Or is it your rule that we have to agree with any and every criticism you make in order not to be accused by you of being cheerleaders for IEP?
How is a 125mph train - with the potential for 140mph once the infrastructure is in place to allow it - going to deliver a massive gain in performance over, er, a 125mph train? It will accelerate better, especially using 25kv, but a 'massive' gain would probably need rocket boosters - not popular in Goring, I'd suggest - or a new high-speed line.
As for what constitutes perfection, I would refer you to any discussion on here about seats, where one person's perfect seat is another's idea of an instrument of torture.
Despite the odd grudging concession you make here and there, you seem unable to distinguish between the way the project has been managed by the DfT and the stupidly expensive and complicated way they have ordered trains, and the trains themselves.
Some of us can - and do - make a distinction. I agree with you - and the House of Commons Public Accouts Committee - about the project management and financing side. I have said this a lot, but you still keep ignoring it as it's easier for you to just claim anyone who ventures any criticism, mild or otherwise, of what you say, or asks for further clarification on various points you make, is just a fan of IEP - end of discussion.
It would clearly have been better for DfT to finalise the IEP concept and leave the actual arrangements for ordering and maintaining the trains to the manufacturer, a leasing company and the operators - you know, like the GWR/TPE AT300/802 orders where the costs of the trains appear to bear some relationship to what would be expected in a normal procurement process.
PS: There is nothing unique about the PAC having a pop at the way the government does things, particularly anything involving Private Finance Initiative-type arrangements, but that doesn't seem to have made a blind bit of difference to any government since the 1990s, when the Norwich & Norfolk Hospital, one of the first big PFIs, was swiftly shown to be a disaster for taxpayers but just great for the financiers.
I understand where you are coming from but I understand how things actually happen in the real world on the operation railway. I've seen trains that should really be 8 or even 12 cars that are run as just a 4 car because control believe they can get away with it and the train is wedged. Yes not every train needs to be full length but I'm sure passengers won't be too please if they were used to a full HST and then end up with a packed 5 car for whatever reason. And these trains are going to cost so much to use I'm sure they will push it as much as they can. Commuters are the main target because that's where the votes are for the politicians.
We've all seen trains run short-formed for various reasons. On the railway, like life generally, stuff happens and trains break down. Maybe control were doing the best they could in the circumstances?
I've had to get over a three-car - or even a two-car - Turbo turning up instead of an HST on occasion over the years. By comparison a five-car 800 would be luxury.
The on-the-record statement from GWR that all peak trains in and out of Paddington will be nine-car or 2x5 - in normal circumstances - is clear enough, as is the further clarification Clarence Yard provided above (post 165, page 11). Something will happen at some point that will result in a service operating as a five-car, but providing a train that gets people where they want to go, even if it's a bit cosy, is, I find, usually a better/more popular solution than no train at all.
Quite, if there is an over provision of seats then why not put in some first class seats which will earn GWR some more income for little in the way of extra cost.
Likewise, depending on the facilities at the stations served then having a buffet could generate extra income, although that would potentially involve higher costs to have and run, so the risk may not result in enough of a return to justify doing it.
It seems pretty clear that the first class market is long-distance passengers - and the 802s will still serve that, plus anyone making a local trip who absolutely must have first class who would have to pick out HST services right now anyway - so I can't see what the point would be on short HSTs, where most passengers will be making local trips and the trains will empty out and refill at Exeter and Plymouth in particular.
Similarly, with catering, buffet cars mean extra overheads to maintain the equipment, whereas if it was felt there were some trains/times of the year when a refreshment service might be worthwhile, trolleys would be far more flexible and allow one person to cover different trains by hopping on and off.
After all, if the 158 transfer happens at some point, trolleys would be the only option anyway. Remember the 180s have buffets fitted, but they have never been used by FGW/GWR since the current five sets returned in 2012, with trolleys used instead.
)?
