End of on-train catering on SWR?

[whole diary]

[smokey]

I am prepared to sit / work / sleep / relax with minimal refreshments for 3 hours - 2020.  For a 5 hour journey, I might want rather more in terms of refreshments (especially if the 1902 trains didn't even have an Internet connection).

I'm 100% sure the 1902 trains Didn't have Internet connection, nor did the 1967 trains, but the 1967 trains in most cases would have had a corridor connection throughout. 

[broadgage]

The 1967 trains would not only have almost certainly had a through corridor, but would also have had a buffet, and possibly a restaurant, and a luggage van, and all or most seats at tables, and padded seats, and all seats with a window.
Facilities now considered unreasonable or unaffordable.
We cant criticise the 1967 trains for absence of WiFi that was not yet invented. Nor can we criticise the absence of air conditioning or power doors, which HAD been invented but not in general use.

As regards passenger facilities and comfort the 1967 train was in my view preferable.

[grahame]

From the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)

RMT welcomes MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) support for campaign to protect all catering jobs and services on South Western Railway.

RAIL UNION RMT today welcomes support from cross-party MPs who have tabled a parliamentary Early Day Motion calling for the Government to urgently intervene and reverse South Western Railway?s reckless decision to axe its on-board catering provision.

SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)?s decision puts over 130 jobs at risk of redundancy in January 2021, and shows no regard for passengers who now risk losing the catering provision across SWR services. Thousands of passengers have already signed an online petition calling for catering services to be retained and protected on SWR.

At the same time as SWR is axing this vital service, its operations continue to be fully publicly funded under its Emergency Recovery Measures Agreement (ERMA). RMT analysis reveals that SWR could receive over ?24m in ?management fees? under the terms of its ERMA, money which can be used to fund profits and make dividend payments.

SWR has said it consulted the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) over its decision to axe this vital service. RMT is demanding that the Government intervene as a matter of urgency to reverse this damaging decision, and to ensure all catering jobs and services on SWR are protected.

[broadgage]

I seldom agree with the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), but this is an exception.
Providing a buffet should be part of running long distance trains even if not directly profitable. A trolley is a poor substitute for a proper buffet, but still better than nothing.

[grahame]

There's been some talk on this forum about the renewed emphasis, post covid, on the notion of the growth of railway journeys as a leisure pursuit in future such as the "Staycation Express" etc.  It might be here where the concept of the traditional buffet may increasingly find a new role, perhaps to the point of a more general revival over time. Preferences change, who knows?

Plans (up North, again ...)

From Rail Advent

Following on from 2020 successful operations of The Staycation Express, Rail Charter Services has released some of its plans for 2021.

New rolling stock and an expanded route will feature for 2021, with a 2+5 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) operating trains from Skipton to Carlisle.

The full train will feature first-class seating with COVID-secure perspex screens in between seating.

[grahame]

From UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Rail News

The first sighting of the Locomotive Services Limited/ Rail Charter Services Staycation Express HST^▸ (High Speed Train) has been reported

It is expected that the set will head north to Crewe on Monday 12th July followed by a press run on the 15th July prior to starting the service on Monday 19th July.

[Rhydgaled]

If the railway industry are serious about encouraging leisure and holiday travel within the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), then that will need proper full sized hot buffets not a microbuffet, or a static trolley. And tables, and seats that align with windows, and space for holiday luggage including cycles and surfboards, perhaps even padded seats.
In short largely a return to the train designs of 50 years ago. Nothing wrong with SOME modern innovations such as power doors, retention toilets, WiFi, and air conditioning, and higher speeds.
But most aspects of train design need to look to the past, rather than the present/recent policies of "what downgrades can we get away with"

I agree with the gist of your post, but not with the priorities. For me, the first thing is making the passenger comfortable - that means padded seats, availability of toilets and legroom. Just as important is alignment with windows (particularly for bays of seats around tables, which need to ensure ALL passengers sitting in them have an unobstructed view (sorry class 153s) and on most trains need to be increased in number). Get those basics right before worrying about cycles, WiFi, buffets and surfboards (probably in that order).

In my view, a proper buffet should be considered for journys of over an hour and should be the norm for two hours or more.
It is the time taken and not the distance in miles that is relevant.
I dont think that the frequency of the service is relevant.
Many outer suburban journys used to have buffets, and still should in my view.

For journeys over about 3 hours a restaurant should be considered, on selected journeys.

I agree that it is the time taken and not the distance in miles that is relevant, but that applies more to the things like tables and legroom I was discussing above than to buffets. For me, all trains intended to provide passenger journeys (distinct from train journeys - if no passenger is expected to stay on a stopping train for it's whole trip (eg. because it is overtaken by a faster service) then the full journey time of the train doesn't count) of over an hour should have ample legroom (more than is provided currently on most UK trains) and a trolley. A buffet is a harder one - it clearly is alot more expensive to provide than a trolley and I don't want large fare rises to pay for it or to waste fuel carting around an unused kitchen/buffet area. Whereas legroom is something that I think every passenger making a journey of over an hour should be entitled to expect, I think a buffet should only be provided when there is sufficient potential demand. 'Potential demand' in this case is passengers making a long journey - the longer that is the heavier weight is put on that passenger in the equasion. Providing a buffet car on the 5-car Cardiff-Portsmouth train is unlikely to be a workable prospect, but if you cannot justify a buffet on a 9-car intercity service out of Paddington something is wrong somewhere (in the case of the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train), they have a kitchen on even the five car sets, but this is stupidly located burried in first class where any potential standard class diners cannot access it which reduces the potential demand - it should perhaps have been on 9-car units only and in a middle coach, not the driving car, with a buffet counter added).

In any case, the train needs to be gangwayed throughout so that the guard can check your ticket (and point out if you're in the wrong part of the train for your destination, or advise what platform your connection will leave from if it's going to be tight) and the trolley can get through or you can get to the buffet (if provided).