I have been criticised for referring to IETs▸ as DMUs▸ .
You are quite right.................if there is a noisy Diesel engine throbbing away under my feet - it's a DMU ! Some DMUs (159s) are more pleasant to travel in than others (IETs).
We've had this discussion before. You can indeed call them DMU's at a bit of a stretch - just like you could describe
HST▸ 's as DMU's - but we all know Broadgage did it to make them sound inferior...and at every opportunity.
They ARE inferior ! and not just in my view, but are generally regarded as being a backward step for long distance services if compared to the previously used HSTs.
Often too short, this being worsened by the cracks, but still a backward step before the cracks.
Hard and uncomfortable seats, generally criticised and not just by me.
No buffets, and often no catering.
No gangway between units. Trolley in the other unit if provided at all.
Inadequate facilities for cycles, not my view I do not cycle, but look at remarks elsewhere on these forums.
Poor luggage space for long distance services to holiday destinations. Surfboards prohibited, on services to a place popular for surfing.
Noise and vibration, poor ride quality.
I fully appreciate that you are more positive than me about these units, but can you really claim that 5 car to Cornwall is better than 8 ?
Or that the seats are more comfortable ?
Or that the sometimes trolley is better than a buffet ?
Or that cycle accommodation is an improvement ?
Or that noise, vibration and ride quality are better than on an HST ?
Again I appreciate that views differ, and that for example some people like the seats, but can you really claim that taking into account train length, catering, luggage/cycle space and comfort in general, that these units are NOT in fact inferior.