I am sorry if my dislike of IETs offends those who support them, and I have indeed posted such remarks fairly regularly, though no more often than supporters post as to how wonderful they are.
If have indeed been critical of the project since before the actual trains existed, and most of my criticisms have been proved to be factually correct.
In the very early days of the project, before designs were finalised, I forecast that the new trains would be DMUs with underfloor engines, this is the case.
I also forecast that the fleet would consist mainly of shorter trains than HSTs. Over half the fleet is 5 car units. Advocates of the new trains pointed out that this would be fine with multiple operation. In fact half length trains have appeared far more often than is desirable over the last year, despite IET supporters stating that these short formations are neither "regular" nor "frequent"
I also stated that the new units would not have buffets, this was proved factually correct. But don't worry a rigged survey shows no more need for a buffet, and some consider provision of such to be "totally unreasonable" these days.
Trolley catering has not been a complete success, with the single trolley often being in the other unit of a 5+5 train, or at the other end of a full length train. But don't worry, the advocates say, it might get better when the whole fleet is in service.
I have made a carefully considered suggestion that the 9 car sets could be lengthened into 10 cars by the addition of a buffet car, that would also provide about 44 extra seats.
Advocates of the IETs in the present form seem to suggest that removal of say 40 seats from an existing formation to add a buffet, would be an unacceptable loss of capacity, whilst others suggest that adding another vehicle to provide MORE seats AND a buffet would result in a "behemoth" of a train.
I have also suggested that some of the 5 car sets could be lengthened, also to 10 car, that seems a reasonable suggestion to provide extra capacity and improved facilities.
At no time have I ever suggested that the whole fleet should be made 10 car. I fully understand the merits of some shorter trains for lightly used services and for portion working, but I am not alone in feeling that the present proportion of 5 cars units is excessive.
So I am not JUST critical but have made a considered suggestion as to how matters could be improved.
There are other facets of the IETs that I don't much like, but these are more subjective and are liked by some so I limit comments on such.
As is so often the case with detractors of the 80x trains, you try to make out that anyone who questions what you say must automatically 'support them' or believe that they are 'wonderful' or something similar.
There is a difference between questioning and rebutting things posted in threads about 80xs (many of them just plain wrong) and coming out and saying these trains are the greatest thing that ever took to the tracks.
There are things that I think could have been done better on the IETs but as people within GWR and the industry generally have explained here over and over, the DfT's micromanagement knows no bounds.
If you want to continue to play games over the definition of the words regular or frequent, that's up to you - other people understand full well what they mean.
You may believe your repetitive posts about 10-car trains with buffet cars are carefully considered but you have never provided any evidence to explain how it would work in the real world. Just saying over and over that you think something should happen is not the same as explaining how it might be justified commercially.
And is there some compelling reason we need to be treated to the same script on this topic from you on an almost weekly basis when you have nothing new to say on the subject?
GWR eventually threw in the towel on Travelling Chef - long after other TOCs had given up offering something similar to all passengers on their services - because it was losing too much money.
Do you know something the TOCs don't about people's eating habits in a world where major stations are now infested with places offering all kinds of food and drink on the go (and a good few smaller GWR stations have someone selling tea and coffee in the mornings now) and people travelling with lots of expensive electronic kit are understandably reluctant to leave it unattended or lug it down a train and back to get a microwaved bacon baguette?
Extra seating capacity and some extended formations may follow in due course - but only after there is a decent amount of real-world experience of the operation of the full fleet of 800s and 802s and of the new GWR timetable and the changes to service patterns that involves - which will provide evidence for making business cases for more seats if they are needed. And more seats is what you will get, not a griddle car cum village pub on steel wheels.
As things stand, the IET fleet already represents a substantial capacity increase on the mixture of HSTs, 180s and Turbos that it is replacing. Never mind what is happening in the Thames Valley with 387s replacing other Turbos - and the 345s on the way eventually.
See you've sidestepped my (and others') point, again. It's not WHAT you say that's the problem here, it's HOW you say it. You are constantly flavouring your replies with arrogance and disrespect, and it's not on.
And you persist in ignoring the simple point I made - that a specific thread title is no guarantee whatever that people will dutifully stick to the subject matter indicated by the title.
There is a thread on this forum started just the other day about the lack of direct London-Bradford trains (not factually correct to begin with) that in the space of two pages has meandered off into people discussing a putative service from Blackburn and Bolton to London. So much for specific thread titles guiding a discussion - never mind that this thread has now been running and ranging over all kinds of things since 2014.
