Great Western Coffee Shop

Conscious of the current Travelling Chef thread in "Across the West",   I'm starting a separate IEP catering thread here; as has been noted, the various things are getting confused.

So - what will IEP have?

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/denies-buffet-cars-hit-buffers/story-22053525-detail/story.html?


Indeed that's correct, but First could say what would possibly happen if they're running the trains in the area at that point.   It's probably not something they want to commit to, and I can understand that - we have the September 2015 probably extension / direct award to come for 10 months, 3 or 5 years (no-one knows which yet), and perhaps (if it is to be 10 months) a further franchise round with multiple potential operators involved.  And to make promises at this stage would be creating a hostage to fortune. 

Also naughty of my to point out that replacement of a buffet by high density seats would increase the seats capacity by 30 to 40, or (if replaced by a cycle area) allow the train to carry, say, 20 more cycles.

I do not often agree with the RMT, but in this case I do agree with the Union.

The present plans for the new trains do not include a buffet for the majority of passengers who will be in steerage.
Supporters of the new trains have IMO muddied the waters by repeatedly stating that the new trains WILL have a buffet, but only for first class.

This I consider to be misleading, what I believe to be proposed is NOT a buffet but a KITCHEN for the preparation of hot meals for first class on selected services and presumably a first class table service for drinks and snacks at other times.

I doubt that a buffet counter service with customer facing staff is proposed. Whom would they serve ? not first class whom will get table service, and not steerage who wont be admitted.

I therefore stand by my previous remarks elsewhere on these forums, that the new trains as presently proposed "wont have buffets"
It is of course possible that the design will be altered in order to provide a buffet and/or a kitchen accessible to both classes, but I feel this to be most unlikely in practice.
"too late to alter the now proven design"
"would increase costs which are under pressure"
"would cause delays in delivery, customers are clamouring for the new trains"
"would reduce seating capacity"

I certainly do not agree that restricting catering to a trolley is a return to a golden age of rail travel.

On the new shorter trains I expect that the trolley will in practice be static as it wont be able to negotiate all the standees and their luggage etc.
On the minority of full length trains, I cant forsee the trolley passing through more than 2 or 3 coaches before running out and returning for re-supply.

Just wondering..................do you think that many people are really that bothered about Travelling Chef/buffet?

You can be pretty sure that were it currently making a significant profit, it would be retained......however the prices are very high and TC is very unreliable/unpredictable in its provision........I wonder whether it's only a relatively few "enthusiasts" who are losing sleep over this - certainly most people I see on trains (and I travel a lot, long distance as well as commuting) seem to manage to bring their own provisions.

I can certainly see the argument for some sort of "sandwich shop" via a trolley or something, but any more than that is perhaps an expensive luxury only appreciated by a few which is losing money and hence about to be chucked overboard?

Given the choice of more seats which are needed by all or a buffet which only a small proportion of customers will use I think I know which option most people would take?

IMHO, on the new half length trains, a kitchen and buffet should be placed between first and steerage in order that meals may be served to first class, and lighter refreshments and drinks be served at the counter for steerage, broadly similar to a proper full buffet HST.

On the full length trains, I believe that a kitchen should be provided in the first class driving vehicle as presently proposed, for table service to first class. And that a bar and buffet should be provided in the middle of the steerage section, this vehicle should have a bar servery in the middle and limited perch seating at each end, with plenty of grab rails and hand holds for those who wish to stand.
This need not entail any actual loss of capacity since many people prefer to stand if in pleasant company and enjoying a drink. They think of this as like being in the pub, where many prefer to stand.
I suspect that the bar and buffet could accommodate 28 on perch seats, and 60 or more HAPPILY standing and pretending that they are in the pub.
Call these vehicles "tavern cars perhaps" :)

........as Captain Mainwaring would say, ".........I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy"  ;D

Something like this perhaps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAd4AcB1t1M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAd4AcB1t1M)

Or slightly more modern, what about something like the bar on a Wessex Electric train, on rush hour services these were routinely full of people standing and enjoying themselves.
Every person standing through choice, is another seat for someone else.

Indeed.........1949 is the way forward....."white wine for the lady Sir?, let me light your pipe for you!"

Wasn't sure if that was real or something from the Fast Show!  ;D

The removal of 'Traveling Chef' may or may not be a concern, since the planned replacement might be just as good if not better. We don't know what is proposed. Your argument of passengers bringing their own provisions however I think is more relevant to the drinks-and-snacks catering provided on most trains than a cooked meal service.

What really matters is modal shift. Take bus/rail interchange at a rural station with nothing but a bus shelter in terms of facilities. In fair weather, if everything ran to time and the time between one service arriving and another departing was arround 5 minutes things would be good. However, things can go a bit wrong so the timetable needs to leave 15-20mins between services. It would then only take one cold windy day and bang the users get a bad experience which could put those travellers off using the public transport option. Not relevant you might think, but I once had a bad experience involving trains and food. I was making a long journey, heading off on holiday, and hoped to find an evening meal at my destination before checking into the hotel. However, on arrival it was dark and was probably too late for the pubs to be serving food, so I ended up with just a light snack (flapjack, from the provisions we had brought with us) instead of a full evening meal. I was not at all pleased, not much fun having to go to bed hungry. Maybe I'd have got some beans on toast had I been traveling on a Traveling Chef service rather than a service with just a trolley. A look at the competition here: if we had gone by car there may have been a service station on route serving food, and judging by the standard of most of those it shouldn't be hard for rail to beat that offering (and, on a train you could save time by eating on the move).

Returning to the matter of IEP, a kitchen/buffet will be provided so that space has been taken up anyway. The question is where in the formation the kitchen/buffet should be positioned, with possibly a second question of what range of food would be offered.

I would say the kitchen/buffet should be positioned between first and standard (as on the IC125 fleet), with the full range available for purchase by any passenger from either class (with certain items complementary for First class passengers, who would also benifit from waiter/waitress service).

That's an interesting perspective however I'm not sure that the sort of people who are going to transfer from the train to the bus on arrival/mid journey are the same demographic who would be willing to pay ^4.50 for beans on toast?

I think the days of trains being moving restaurants as well as a means of transport are probably drawing towards a close and this is evidenced by the generally patchy provision and relatively low takeup of what's on offer.

Sure the Pullman will always appeal to a few but it's a niche market and unaffordable to most.

If people do want to eat on the move, they generally plump for a sandwich or similar (hence the explosion of Subway and supermarket sandwiches) so that would be the way forward I think for the railways, reflecting the prevailing market conditions......your late night hotel arrival scenario is reasonable however in all honesty how many people would that impact more than once a year?

I can agree with you that ^4.50 sounds rather steep for beans on toast. I was rather supprised, however, to see that Little Chef charged ^3.99 for beans on toast (that's not what I ordered though). I also agree that the Pullman is a niche service that few would use, I for one probably will never use it. I'm very fussy and the menu will probably not feature anything I would eat. I do wonder how much of the low takeup is due to how terribly patchy the provision is, and the form that provision takes where it does exist. As I've said the competition is motorway services, rail tends to offer either next to nothing or something much fancier. Isn't there scope for a more general menu which would appeal to a wider audience? Frequency of the late night hotel arrival scenario is certainly a valid question, but could occur for a number of reasons. Any long journey could result in a late-evening arrival.

The key issue is that on board catering doesnt cover its costs.  In particular the cost of buying and maintaining the space provided has not been matched by the revenue.  I speak with the benefit of having managed onboard catering and been responsible for the income on my trains.  The revenue covered the cost of goods sold and the staff but never the daily maintenance of ovens and other equipment and the substantial lease costs of the vehicles.

I love travelling in a train with white table cloths and silver service but I have come to realise that I cannot expect other passengers (or the taxpayer) to subsidise this activity.

I may be howled down for this sacrilege, but I've always been surprised that British railway operators haven't installed vending machines on their trains.

They can serve the same stock as a trolley (or better, because they can be refrigerated if needs be); there's no need for on-train staff; stock control can be monitored electronically; and what passengers lose in at-seat convenience, they gain in being able to purchase items at any time. They're fairly space-effective and the servicing network already exists.

It's not a new idea - they exist in Germany, Norway (http://www.selecta.com/latest-news/vending-machines-in-trains/), and inevitably Japan.

.......I sense a certain turning from Bob Crow's grave......no need for staff? Must be an excuse for a strike!!!  :D

In my view, a reasonable on board catering offer is part of running an intercity train service, and need not make a profit.
After all, how much profit is made by the luggage racks, toilets, and wheelchair spaces ?

What is "reasonable" would of course differ according to journey time and customer numbers.
In my view a trolley service should be the absolute minimum on secondary routes, with a hot buffet being the norm, and a full silver service restaurant on selected services.
I would hope that revenue would cover wages and direct input costs, but not perhaps vehicle leasing and train crew wages other than catering staff.

If revenue covered costs we wouldn't be having this debate.

I suspect that catering revenue DOES cover the direct costs of consumable supplies and catering crew wages.
But it probably does NOT cover the indirect costs such as purchasing or leasing the catering vehicle, and the catering vehicles share of track access charges, drivers wages and diesel fuel or traction current used.

In my view these indirect costs are part of running a railway, just like providing toilets, wheelchair spaces and luggage space.

I suspect it's not so much about covering costs but rather more about maximising (income - expenditure)

If I had space that I could sell for - say - ^120 per hour at (say) ^5 pounds expenditure above running the train (2 extra seats) or that I could generate an income of ^150 from, at an expenditure of salary plus supplies plus maintenance of specialist equipment - say ^50 pounds, then it would be sensible for me to provide a couple of seats rather than a trolley / space.  Haven't a clue what the real figures are.   

P.S.  No catering on the train may leave me free to charge more for at-station concessions which would be more valuable

What's wrong with a buffet car between first and standard class as on most HSTs at the moment. Pretty poor if you can't get coffee/tea/soft drink/ bacon roll or breakfast roll /sandwich. Agree that silver service is probably unneccesary.

Let's not make the railway into Ryanair - any more than it's already become.

I think the location of some facilities is partly down to maximising the use of the 'crumple zone' at each end of the train.  Passengers cannot travel in that part of the train, so it makes sense to use it for other non-passenger carrying things, such as bikes (as on the Class 180s) or a galley (as on the Voyagers).  Personally I would like to see a galley/store at the first class end of the train, together with a small shop/buffet and store in between the standard and first class section - as allowed for in the design of the train but not specified by the DfT (though as I've said before let's wait and see how the final layout shapes up).

...at which point it's too late to object/do anything about it?

There won't be a buffet IMO, it'll be trolley, but as with other aspects of the interior, if voices aren't heard before the final layout is confirmed, then you cannot really complain when it's too late to change.

Oh yes, I'd encourage everyone (who feels a trolley isn't adequate) to do everything they can, through the proper channels and not a whinge on here, to put pressure on those responsible (Dft/FGW) for the final layout - both members of staff and the public.  From what I've heard FGW management themselves have been very proactive in discussions with the DfT with all aspects of the train, but I'm not sure how many changes they can specify, or would want to specify, as (likely) long term operators of them.

I read (on another thread I think?) that Travelling Chef was losing ^1 million per year.....no sensible business would tolerate this loss for very long......like I said if it was profitable we wouldn't be having this debate.

I'm not sure how the demise of the Travelling Chef is relevant?  I don't think many people (aside from the unions and the chef's themselves) can argue with the fact it's being withdrawn, and most comments on here (including my own) seem to have been of the 'regretful yet inevitable' type.  Even Barry Doe has agreed it is sensible to withdraw them.

Buffet's are a whole different ball game though, as all the other similar long distance operators have them (or a shop) except for the 'just do enough' franchise that is Cross Country.  So that's East Coast, Virgin, East Midlands Trains, Hull Trains, Grand Central and Greater Anglia that are all presumably still able to make them work (i.e. any losses are fairly small and outweighed by the benefits of having them), some with a combination of a buffet and trolley for all passengers.

.....apologies, I got the wrong end of the stick  :-[

.....maybe if FGW are reluctant to provide a buffet themselves, it could be franchised to Subway or similar?

I was told by XC catering staff once (yes I know pinch of salt), that the trolleys themselves don't take as much as the buffets, but their running costs are less, so overall better value for money (less losses) for XC and knickers to the public.

Not certain if that would help.

The problem is not so much in staffing and supplying a buffet, FGW, Rail Gourmet, Subway and many others are capable of doing this.
The reluctance to provide a buffet is partly due to the space taken up, removing or downgrading catering will provide more of the famous "thousands of extra seats" Remember that most of the new trains are much shorter than those they are to replace, and that even the full length ones offer only a modest increase if compared to a high density HST.

I also suspect that modern railway management dislike catering on general principles ! "if we don't provide it, then the wretched customers can not complain about it"  doing the minimum certainly removes complexity and leaves less to go wrong and be complained about.

A small point of order if I may. East Midlands Trains rarely staff their buffets these days. Even when they do it is most likely to be with a static trolley. Officially, for Standard Class passengers it's an at-seat trolley service on Monday-Fridays. At the weekend the trolley may be static in the buffet, or the buffet stocked with a similar range to that available from a trolley.

Travelled on Cross-Country from Cheltenham to Birmingham today. Trolley service - far from great.

And yet.... on Tuesday I travelled on the 1852 XC Peterbro to Brum via Leicester. Trolley did 2 complete runs up and down in that 90 minutes, was fully stocked and operated by a very professional young lady who welcomed passengers on and off in person at the stations....but despite all her efforts, very few were buying. With that degree of patronage, it is very hard to argue against removal of the trolley service.

I'm struck by the different metrics of the journeys on some of the trains we're talking about ... with East Coast services (London - Edinburgh) taking 4.5 hours with 4 intermediate stops (54 minutes between stations) in contrast to FGW (London - Swanse) taking 3 hours with 9 intermediate stops (18 minutes between stations) and that latter journey getting yet shorter with electrification.   Will people want a buffet / go to a buffet / even buy from a trolley on a shorter journey where many of the customers will be much more local?    In our neck of the woods, IEP isn't the longest journeys - they stay HST, and presumably the buffets stay on there.

That argument is irrelevant since both the 5-car and 9-car variants of IEP are planned to have level 1 catering (full kitchen) on board, taking up space which could be used for seating. The issue is that it takes up seating at the end of the train rather than a coach or two further along, where it could be reached by standard class pax too.

As IndustryInsider said above, we should all be using the 'proper channels' (which I assume involves writing to your MP, DfT and FirstGW, I've already done the latter and have tried to get at DfT via Passenger Focus as I'm not sure they'll take note if I write to them direct. I wrote to my MP several times about IEP a while ago and plan to do so again to remind him). My letters have mentioned the catering issue, but I've maining focused on an even bigger concern: the over emphasis on 5-car sets. Could anyone who agrees with me please write to DfT/MP/FirstGW also.

Personally, I think the GWML fleet should look more like this (diagrams):

• 22x 9-car 'electric'
• 13x 9-car bi-mode
• 8x 5-car bi-mode

I think that would be a vastly more sensible fleet for the GWML than the planned 35 5-car bi-modes. That's 33 diagramed vehicles more than the current plan, but I've come up with the following plan which would release 34 diagrammed vehicles from the ECML IEP fleet AND provide stock for an electrified MML without ordering any more new rolling stock (again, the numbers are diagrams):

• 14x IEP 9-car bi-mode (split 4 for MML, 10 for ECML)
• 8x IEP 5-car bi-mode (split equally between ECML and MML)
• 11x IEP 8-car 'electric' (for MML only)
• 14x IEP 9-car 'electric' (for ECML only)
• 26x IC225 (8 for MML, 18 for ECML)

Not looking good, IMHO for catering on long distance trains.
It was originally proposed that a limited number of HSTs would be retained for services to/from the far west, these of course have kitchens located to permit of restaurant service primarily for first class but with steerage admitted if space permitted.

It now appears that a sub-fleet of the new shorter trains is to be built for far west services. Only 7 full length trains are proposed with the great majority being half length.
As the new trains have the kitchen located at the first class end*, it seems unlikely that steerage will be able to dine even if space be available.
Will it even be viable to provide a Pullman service on a half length train ?
Whilst in theory 2 of the new DMUs could be coupled together, they are not gangwayed so any restaurant will only be available to half of the train.
What if the booking system puts one in the non restaurant end ?

And of course the new trains don't have buffets*, so nothing beyond a trolley for steerage, even on trips of many hours to/from the far west.
Looking more and more like a downgrade rather than an improvement.

*yes I know that the internal layout of the sub fleet has not yet been decided and might in theory include a buffet and kitchen located between first and steerage, but it is not likely to happen is it ?
For some years I have expressed negative views about the new shorter trains, and apologists for the new trains have repeatedly stated that they COULD have buffets.
Well they are now being built, and don't have buffets.
Does anyone really believe that the second lot will be different ?

This is what DfT says about the new mini-franchise in their consultation response:

Why does that say "it would be difficult for us to implement any other solution"? Who "us"? DfT don't implement - maybe they lifted a bit of an FGW report and didn't adapt it.

(Yes, it is a duplicate post.)

Translation.

"after implying for some years that the new trains WOULD have buffets, and then that they COULD have buffets, and then that buffets COULD BE RETROFITTED, we have now had to admit that they DONT have buffets. Therefore we have produced some carefully rigged survey results that show people actually prefer not to have a buffet"

The purpose of such surveys is not to find out what the customers want, it is to justify decisions that have already been taken on the grounds that "it is what customers want, surveys show it"

In fairness to them, when I saw the pictures of the first unit's driving vehicles being unloaded I think that the 'buffets COULD BE RETROFITTED' claim might actually be true. Unlike the mk3 buffet cars, the windows seem the same on the 1st class kitchen driving vehicle as on the standard class driving vehicle, just with what could be white card behind the glass. Am I right? If so, maybe the kitchen can be moved within the train? Still, the 'they don't have buffets' statement is also, sadly, true.

And I say the above despite my outrage at FirstGW's decision not only to propose underfloor engined units, despite their MD saying back in 2011 that stakeholders considered class 222s unacceptable for the route in part because of underfloor engines, but to suggest that most should be 5-car 'sardine midgets' too. The Great Western seems to be a poor relation to the ECML, where there is to basiclly be a 9-car IEP for every replaced 2+9 IC125/225 set with 5-car units enlarging the fleet. Meanwhile, the GWML looks like getting only 25 9-car IEPs to replace getting on for 50 IC125s.

Sadly I have to agree that the days of a nice buffet counter on services out of Paddington appear to be numbered.  A retrograde step in my opinion to only offer a trolley to Standard Class passengers - although it will no doubt be a better catering solution for some passengers,  the range and quality of the food and drink is likely to suffer as a result.

Pax will get used to bringing their own where necessary - which, according to FGW, most are already doing.