I agree - I was all for the conversion of 319s into 769s (and the introduction of 230s) - I try to be honest about the predictions I got wrong - and around five years ago my approach was along the lines of:
- We have lots of "Provincial" lines where more capacity is needed (compared to the single Sprinters currently used) but the high subsidies mean there's a weak case for brand new trains
- We have hundreds of "Network South East" EMUs that don't have a long term home (because of Crossrail, because of Thameslink, because of standardised fleets in the old Southern Region)
- We have committed to huge amounts of electrification (MML to Sheffield, GWR to Oxford/Swansea, Transpennine, Central Belt, Electric Spine, East-West, Valley Lines etc) with talk of more to come (e.g. Hull Trains funding electrification as part of their negotiations for extended access rights)
- So by CP6 we'll be able to start wiring up the "secondary" lines (i.e. once you've wired some routes, the case for filling in the "gaps" looks a lot better - if you've wired the MML to Sheffield then it wouldn't take much to link it to the ECML at Doncaster/ Moorthorpe or the WCML in the West Midlands… if you've wired the GWML to Oxford then the case for wiring from Oxford to Coventry looks a lot better...)
- That means there's a poor case for investing in pure DMUs (given the way that electrification will free up large numbers of midlife ones)
- But there's still a medium term capacity problem whilst we wait for the wires
- If we could stick an engine under the 317/319/321/455s (etc) then we'd have something broadly equivalent to a four coach 150 that could run at 100mph on the wires through central Manchester/ Leeds and manage to cope with the lower speed sections closer to the termini (e.g. Buxton)
So all we needed to do was adapt the mid-life EMUs by sticking an engine in them and we'd have a capacity boost whilst we waited for the wires.
We all know what happened - electrification was delayed/ scaled back/ cancelled - we are still waiting for some routes to be done and have given up hope on others - TOCs have ordered pur DMUs as they can see which way the wind is blowing. Porterbrook haven't managed to get 769s in service - 230s haven't made the splash I'd have expected - even just sticking power doors in a Mk3 seems to be a massive stumbling block.
Therefore, if I were putting in a bid for the next franchise to come up, and I had the choice of betting on someone turning a sow's ear into a silk purse (by converting/upgrading mid-life stock) or just going straight to Hitatchi/CAF for brand new trains then I'd choose the latter. I'm all for "reduce/ re-use/ recycle", I'd be happy enough if we could keep older trains fit for modern service, but it's just not been working. I can't therefore criticise any TOC who decide that (having seen the problems with the Scottish HSTs or the Northern 769s or the Midland 230s) they'd be better off with one big fleet of new units.
Much as I enjoy reading the "My Plan For Getting Class 60s To Haul Passenger Trains" or "My Suggestion To Convert 325s Into Passenger Units" (etc), the evidence points to it being too complicated/ slow/ expensive to try to upgrade older stock.
So, in answer to the OP's enquiry about "spending too much money on new trains" - I don't think we are. Government dithering meant nobody took a decision over accessible trains until the last minute (ideally, we should have been planning to replace Pacers at least ten years ago but that was always in the tray marked "too difficult") - hence the current problems.
However, the people spending all the money on new trains (the TOCs funding the ROSCOs) aren't the ones who'd have been spending money on infrastructure - so IMHO it's not as if the "new trains" budget is coming at the expensive of the "better infrastructure" budget".
The reason why Network Rail haven't fixed signalling problems/ extended the platforms they promised/ delivered the electrification they agreed to (etc) isn't because TOCs have ordered too many new trains - but I think that a lot of the focus on this thread has been criticising "profligate" franchises and not enough attention paid to why Network Rail isn't delivering.
This is really one of those things where we come back to the need for pro-active management from government!
Essentially, be it electrification, new trains, new platforms, modifications to existing rolling stock, etc, having experienced staff who can do things in a reasonable time frame and move from job to job, finding new ways of doing certain things just a bit better is the most efficient way of doing things.
Outside of rail, projects like Hinckley Point C have spiralled cost-wise, because the experience isn't there anymore. I'm sure the plant will be perfectly safe, etc when completed, but it will sure take a long time to complete and cost billions.
Having large amounts of standardised things, created and operated by teams who have built up experience over a good period of time will always be the most efficient way.
This is why Metrolink can lob an extension up and finish early, and why the airline industry can fly you from Manchester to Paris cheaper than you can get the train to London. The boring ways, like having a team dedicated to Metrolink, slowly gaining experience, or buying essentially the exact same aircraft model for over a decade, are the most efficient and functional.
Again bringing up the debate surrounding Railtrack/BR/Network Rail, does having contractors make the network safer? we know its more cost efficient, but does it lose thousands of hours of knowledge on how to do a job when every contract or tender finishes?
Do the contractors I.e Balfour Beatty etc spend anything like they should on having enough equipment or do they move it from site to site to get the best out of their investment?
Does having a permanently employed railworker sat on his hands some days/evenings/weekends because they are based in the South East but there is no work being allowed on the network in the South East because of some event or agreement make sense when his/her expertise could be used on a huge project in Huddersfield for example?
Does having permanent teams waste money and resources that could be spent on the infrastructure rather than wages?
I would love a company to take control, have professional, well paid, well trained, highly skilled and a highly motivated workforce that was allowed the time required time to carry out the works that were required.
But sadly we run a reactive, not a pro-active railway and until that changes the Victoria infrastructure will continue to be patched up, bodged and in most cases won't be fit for purpose. But hey a guy can dream
Yes! Proactivity is super important. I think building on my point above, what should have happened is the government pre-empt these problems and employ smaller teams over longer periods of time to go across the whole network and carry out upgrades, be it signalling, electrification, track-work, etc.
This stop-start, cancel, un-cancel, "victorian rail revolution" one week and election another does nothing to help anyone.
This isn't victorian times anymore, we don't just have tons of cheap labour and land lying around. Also, the things we do build arguably have to be to a much higher standard.
Sheffield station desperately significant alterations to the northern throat which is our equivalent of Castlefield (yet no one talks about this) but will cost a substantial fee due to the nature of the bedrock and the number of bridges that would need total replacement/widening. The station also needs a proper remodel as well.
As someone who frequently experiences both, I would say Sheffield isn't quite as bad as Castlefield. Although, Castlefield is a complete cluster**** so doesn't take much to beat it!
Sheffield is definitely a noticeably slower area for trains to pass through than other cities, so some remodelling perhaps in a similar vain to the work done at Derby would be perfect.