HSTs were a great leap forward 40 years ago and they've been very popular ever since, surpassing younger rivals in the experience of many passengers. They've hammered up and down the country in all weathers, both coaches and locomotives having parts repaired, replaced and upgraded many times. The result must be a mix of altered, deformed and corroded vehicles for which any production line treatment must be challenging.
The experience of preservation groups suggests that almost every restoration takes a lot longer than hoped. Each unit is one off preservation on a much bigger scale. It might have been cheaper and quicker to order new units from the original plans, updated with modern materials and specifications! Of course shipping the old trains to workshops in Europe to speed up the conversion programme would be unthinkable.
If done right the units should last at least another 10 years. When's a new bi-mode 43 coming down track to keep them going another 25 years?
Can you help me understand what you have against using hauled stock? By your own admission you've been directly involved in procurement of rolling stock since the 90's, which means in all likelihood you were involved in decisions to procure high density DMU stock (170's, Desiros or similar) on long distance Inter-City routes. Am I right in that assumption? Given that you have been on this forum defending the 170s and even suggesting converting them to 6 car trains for Inter City services, can you explain to me why you think a train like this is better than using hauled stock? The financial argument I fully understand, but what other arguments in your mind support going with a 170 or other similar DMU on long haul services?
