Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

I understand FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.

I think you just answered your own question. My underlining.

I don't think I answered the question at all. Maybe I didn't word my post clearly enough?

[ellendune]

I understand FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.

I think you just answered your own question. My underlining.

I don't think I answered the question at all. Maybe I didn't word my post clearly enough?

Sorry not to be clear enough, but if there are no wheelchair spaces in standard that is clearly not the final layout. 

[stuving]

I understand FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.

The PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI requires 2 wheelchair spaces on trains up to 205 m (i.e. 5x26), and three over that (i.e. 9x26). It says nothing about which class they should be in.

Logic suggests that with only two it's impossible for them to always be in the right class, so either you have to provide two in each (using space to do so, though it could also serve another purpose) or put them in 1st and automatically upgrade both wheelchair passengers and their accompanists(?). Nine car IEPs have two in each class, which seems reasonable though no doubt sometimes it will not suit whoever turns up.

[IndustryInsider]

The draft or proposed interior layout DOES have mainly unidirectional seating with only about a third of seats being at tables, this is no worse than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) that has been downgraded to high density commuter layout. But is a significant backward step from proper inter city trains that had ALL or almost all seats at tables.

Hmmm, looking at the online seating layouts for standard class I make there a total of around 24 seats at tables in the current high-density layout and 60 in the low-density layouts.  Bearing in mind that in the current conversion work, we are promised (welcome news), another 8 tables on those coaches that are having an extra standard class carriage being added, and that bumps the total up to a maximum of 92 seats on the current layouts being at tables.  Looking at the proposed IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 9-car layouts (not set in stone as I've said before, but the most accurate source we currently have) and I count the number of seats at tables working out at 192.  So, as you say no worse than a HST downgraded to a high density layout - in fact you could say over three times better!

By the way, even the 5-car Bi-mode's have more standard class seats at tables than the best-case low density 8-carriage HST set.   

Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

I'm not sure you do remember correctly, though feel free to provide a link to an official source (DfT, Hitachi or FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) that uses the phrase 'comparable to existing trains'.  I remember the phrase 'no compromise on leg room' being used on all the press releases.  The phrase 'no compromise' certainly isn't the same as 'comparable' is it?  It would suggest (as backed up with BMN's tape measure if I remember correctly) that the leg room will be at least as much as on the current stock - acceptable in my opinion.

[Rhydgaled]

The PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI requires 2 wheelchair spaces on trains up to 205 m (i.e. 5x26), and three over that (i.e. 9x26). It says nothing about which class they should be in.

Quite possible that the 'draft' layouts haven't changed then, since there are two wheelchair spaces on the plan (next to the universal-access toilet in 1st class). There is also an universal toilet in standard on the draft plan, which has another two wheelchair spaces next to it in the longer sets but not the 5-car units.

[Rhydgaled]

Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

I'm not sure you do remember correctly, though feel free to provide a link to an official source (DfT, Hitachi or FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) that uses the phrase 'comparable to existing trains'.  I remember the phrase 'no compromise on leg room' being used on all the press releases.  The phrase 'no compromise' certainly isn't the same as 'comparable' is it?  It would suggest (as backed up with BMN's tape measure if I remember correctly) that the leg room will be at least as much as on the current stock - acceptable in my opinion.

'no compromise on leg room' has certainly been claimed. The question is, which current stock is that claim based on? If ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) 150s were used, then it most certainally is not acceptable. If class 175s, then great.

[IndustryInsider]

Indeed it does, Rhydgaled.  Hence BMN dispatching himself to measure the spec against a current FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train).  As usual I recommend we'll just wait and see until we see them in the flesh before assuming anything, though I wanted to take the opportunity to challenge Broadgage on his recollection of how legroom has been officially described.

[John R]

Bearing in mind that in the current conversion work, we are promised (welcome news), another 8 tables on those coaches that are having an extra standard class carriage being added, and that bumps the total up to a maximum of 92 seats on the current layouts being at tables. 

More than a promise - they do indeed have 8 tables. As a result they have a much more spacious feel to them when you enter. The other way to spot these coaches is that in most of them the lighting is a different colour as I presume they haven't changed this from the previous first accommodation. So the interior has a much warmer feel to it, rather than the cold blue-ish light in the other standard coaches.

[Rhydgaled]

As usual I recommend we'll just wait and see until we see them in the flesh before assuming anything

I would agree with that approach for issues like legroom, however not all the potential issues are so easily fixed. Using your list from earlier, to which I have added the buffet issue:

• The reduction of standard class catering to trolley-only No assumption necessary: obvious from the plans - action required
• The majority of 8-carriage trains to be replaced by 5-carriage ones No assumption necessary: obvious from the plans - action required
• A reduction in the number of seats at tables obvious from the plans, but appear to be 8 tables per full standard class carriage so apparently comparable to current stock
• Reduced legroom As you say, cannot be judged until seen in the flesh
• Insuffient luggage space cannot be judged until seen in the flesh
• Over complicated trains leading to reliability issues cannot be judged until seen in the flesh

Therefore, it is the top two items (with notes in red) that I have mentioned in the letter I have just printed off to send to my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), along with the concern I have about the government not having any plans for the future use of class 91s and mrk4s.

Now that it has been proven to be the case, I completely agree with him that it is a real shame and a downgrade on that aspect of the trains appeal.  I can see why it's happened as, compared with the era he often refers to in his posts, peoples eating habits have changed substantially, and there are now far more retail outlets at the stations offering a wide choice of modern style meals, whereas until the 90s you might get a Travellers Fare and John Menzies if you were lucky.  That and the desperate need for more seating accommodation due to the popularity of the railways currently looks like it has won the day.

Trolley services aren't all bad of course, in fact there are several types of passengers (with luggage, children etc.) who indeed prefer them over a long walk down several carriages to a buffet counter, but I feel that an important part of the train's prestige will be lost - not to mention the variety of products available (and their quality) reducing as a result.  Time will tell how that decision will go down with the passengers, but I feel the general feeling will be more negative than positive.

How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.

[IndustryInsider]

How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.

I'd certainly concede it might not indeed take up much less space, though of course having it at the end of the train means there might be space saved if it's a crew only area with no through route for passengers taking up space and/or it encroaches on part of the crumple zone where passengers cannot be conveyed.  It's a little difficult to tell what is what from looking at the plans.

[IndustryInsider]

An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/

[stuving]

An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/

Of course. The IEP specification always included modularity of catering (four levels were defined), and easy alteration of seating, so that it could be changed for a new franchise let or a transfer. So neither is really part of "IEP, the programme".

What has not been so clear is who or what determines the initial layout. In the spec. it was partly just for costing and partly appeared to be for delivery, but it was reported (including here) that this was discussed further after contract was placed. How much FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were involved is even less clear, given the way their franchise end was redefined at least twice. Logically, if adaptability is that good, it could be varied, for trains not as yet fitted out, at nearly zero cost.

However, given the continuing reduction in standard class catering provision in FGW's HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), in their case would you expect any more than a trolley if it was their decision alone? Similar end of franchise conditions, and others, apply to EC. This has nothing to do with needing more seats, it's all about what people will buy enough of to make it worth putting on sale.

[Rhydgaled]

How big is the first class only kitchen on the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) plans compared to the kitchen/buffet on the IC125 sets? I don't think the loss of a buffet for standard has much to do with increasing seating capacity since DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) seem happy to foist so many 5-car sets (which still provide a kitchen for 1st class) on us.

I'd certainly concede it might not indeed take up much less space, though of course having it at the end of the train means there might be space saved if it's a crew only area with no through route for passengers taking up space and/or it encroaches on part of the crumple zone where passengers cannot be conveyed.  It's a little difficult to tell what is what from looking at the plans.

It doesn't look to me like the kitchen is within the crumple zone, compare the 1st class driving vehicle with the standard class one and it seems that area is taken up by seats at the standard-class end. That leaves the question of whether it is a crew-only area and whether that allows a smaller area to be taken up, which is why I asked the orriginal question. Using the same size kitchen/buffet area, I've fiddled with the seat plan of the 9-car set a bit in photoshop to allow standard class passengers to access the kitchen/buffet. In the two coaches I modified, I ended up with 43 first and 34 standard seats versus 38 standard 45 first. That's only 6 seats less and probably only because I used slightly more table bays in the modified vehicles. But I wonder if the area needs to be bigger to provide a buffet counter and the same cooking facilities as existing trains.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From Herald Scotland:

Union attacks buffet car scrapping

Union leaders have hit out at "secret plans" to axe the buffet car on new East Coast services.

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) is calling on the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to intervene after it emerged that the buffet car would be scrapped to make way for extra passenger seating when new rolling stock is introduced under the East Coast and First Great Western franchises.

Catering services for standard class passengers will instead be provided by an on-board trolley. The change applies to the new Hitachi class-800 series trains, which will be introduced on East Coast services from 2019.

RMT said it had uncovered the plans in the small print of documents relating to the DfT's Intercity Express Programme, which is procuring the new fleet. The union said it would mean a poorer service for customers as well as staff job losses.

A spokesman for RMT said First Great Western had confirmed the move. He added: "We assume this will also be the case on East Coast, since it is using the same trains. We are calling on the Government to intervene. It is not too late to change the specifications. The trains have not been built yet, and we would urge the buffet car to be retained."

A spokeswoman for the DfT said: "The safety and comfort of both passengers and staff has been a top priority in the design of these trains and passengers and staff have been closely involved in the design process. Fixed kitchens as well as trolley facilities are included in the base design of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train and there is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers."

[Rhydgaled]

From Herald Scotland:

Union attacks buffet car scrapping

Union leaders have hit out at "secret plans" to axe the buffet car on new East Coast services.

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) is calling on the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to intervene after it emerged that the buffet car would be scrapped to make way for extra passenger seating when new rolling stock is introduced under the East Coast and First Great Western franchises.

Catering services for standard class passengers will instead be provided by an on-board trolley. The change applies to the new Hitachi class-800 series trains, which will be introduced on East Coast services from 2019.

RMT said it had uncovered the plans in the small print of documents relating to the DfT's Intercity Express Programme, which is procuring the new fleet. The union said it would mean a poorer service for customers as well as staff job losses.

A spokesman for RMT said First Great Western had confirmed the move. He added: "We assume this will also be the case on East Coast, since it is using the same trains. We are calling on the Government to intervene. It is not too late to change the specifications. The trains have not been built yet, and we would urge the buffet car to be retained."

A spokeswoman for the DfT said: "The safety and comfort of both passengers and staff has been a top priority in the design of these trains and passengers and staff have been closely involved in the design process. Fixed kitchens as well as trolley facilities are included in the base design of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train and there is scope to introduce buffet facilities if the new franchisee wants to offer this facility to its passengers."

The RMT have only just noticed this now? The fools, they should read the Coffee Shop fourm, we noticed ages ago.