Since that is the case, could someone please explain to me why it would be unreasonable to expect the following on services that form some of the longest journeys in the country:
It might not be unreasonable to expect them if you want XC to be a high-quality service that passengers go to just for the comfort and amenities. But the Government is not in the business of subsidising such activities, for better or for worse. They care about economic benefits, and that is delivered by service frequency and speed most of all.
- Train lengths of 7-12 coaches.
Quite apart from the fact that these would not fit on all platforms used by XC (one good example being the Reading western platforms, or the half-platforms in Birmingham New Street), there is not the demand for this many coaches throughout the day. A better way to meet peak demand would be like with the IETs, where sets can split and join. But either way, there are very few services where people are literally prevented from travelling through the overcrowding. In almost all cases it is a question of comfort. If the same economic benefits can be delivered through shorter trains that accordingly cost less to lease and run, why would the DfT subsidise passengers to have a better chance of a seat? Comparisons with the likes of Thameslink and the southeast are not apt, seeing as the loadings are so much higher there that people are often genuinely unable to fit on the next train when one is cancelled.
- A proper guard’s van (eg half a carriage) with plenty of room for bikes, luggage, prams etc in the centre of the train.
Coach D on the Voyagers already has this in the former Shop area. It seems to be a total waste of space that's hardly ever full up with luggage, mostly used by people to sit down on the shelves.
- A mixture of airline, table and compartment seating (in both classes) to suit all seating preferences.
I've already explained why compartments aren't happening. Peoples' seating preferences are highly unlikely to sway someone from making or not making a particular journey, so again, economic benefits are very limited.
- A restaurant car. Not a luxury GWR Pullman Dining type premium service, but a cafe/ bistro serving reasonably priced hot food in a sit-down setting.
Total loss-maker, hence why it can only be offered on a select few services where it does exist, to pool all the demand onto that one train.
Inefficient use of space, whether people like it or not.
CrossCountry already has this throughout its fleet.
Having been around Europe by train and seen all the above in modern high speed rolling stock, I really do wonder why it is not possible to do the same here.
It's apples and oranges. Here almost all increases in subsidy have to have a Cost-Benefit justification. There are only very few exceptions (e.g. the replacement of the Pacers). Other European countries have higher taxes and are happy to subsidise their railways more.
This is compounded by the fact that some or all of these features were once to be found in the UK (compartments, restaurant cars)
If they no longer exist then that's a pretty good indication there's a reason for that! Why would any train operator stop providing a facility for which there is a strong justification?
or are extant with other TOCs (longer trains, better seating mix, buffet counters).
All already explained above.
Instead XC seem to be the budget airline equivalent of a TOC these days.
They are certainly by no means as luxurious as other TOCs but they are far better than most commuter TOCs. But it hardly matters - there aren't many people who will actively prefer the train
just because it's the train. They will choose on convenience, cost and journey time.
XC offer direct trains between destinations that could be reached quicker with a change of train or cross-London transfer (eg South West to Scotland, South Coast to North West).
There are still many cases where using CrossCountry is the quickest way compared to going via London, and even where this is not the case, many people (myself included) are willing to have a longer journey time in return for not having to change at all, or as many times. CrossCountry offers this.
If not competing on speed, surely they should be competing on comfort?
They do compete on speed for a fair number of runs (obviously not the very long distance Plymouth to Glasgow type routes). But where this is not the case they primarily compete on the convenience of having through trains between many places (or enabling journeys with just 1 or 2 changes as opposed to far more).
Don't get me wrong - I don't think the current situation on XC is in any way desirable. But it would take an about-turn in policy from the DfT and its organ grinder the Government for it to substantially change. There are rumours that capacity expansion is indeed on the cards for XC. If so I can only imagine this is a political ploy.