However, they could redesign the UIC version and have many more guaranteed orders for it. They will not have done the same amount of redesigning work for a much smaller market and then commit to build a grand total of four new trains based on that design. The 'new' UK Pendolino would be to the existing design what the Class 222 is to the 220/221 design, basically.
The basic 390 design dates back to 1997 or thereabouts when Virgin issued an invitation to tender, so it is long past its sell-by date. And it was made clear at the time the second batch of 390s and the extra coaches were ordered that that would be it for that variant - for the very simple reason that Alstom was moving on to a new generation of Pendolinos. Any future UK orders will be based on that template, not on what came out of the design office in the late 1990s.
And does Alliance actually have a signed contract with Alstom anyway? When Virgin was talking about buying 21 new baby Pendolinos for the new West Coast franchise, before the franchising fiasco put paid to that idea, no wonder Alstom was interested in a new UK variant - and adding a few more on for an open access operator would have seemed a fine idea. Remember we have yet to see one of Alliance's famed Chinese trains...
I was trying to put my argument in terms of why, if The Powers That Be decide that Manchester-Scotland should remain with TransPennine and not be put in the West Coast franchise, that it would still be a reasonable idea for the TransPennine operator to run Pendolinos on the route rather than go for a fully consistent fleet all its routes. I don't know if it would even be possible for Manchester-Scotland to be put in the ICWC franchise given that the tender just went out on having it in the TransPennine one. Clearly, if the decision were made later to change this, for example when the franchises need redesigned to cope with HS2, then it would be more than possible for the ICWC operator to take on the entire Manchester-Scotland operation, trains, crews, timetable and all.
As we know full well, the DfT can and will do whatever it pleases with franchises, whenever it likes. As things currently stand, the shortlisted TPE bidders are probably asking themselves what on earth it is that they are actually being asked to bid to run anyway.
If there are going to be six TP North paths an hour, the 'InterCity' service would take up at most two of them. It would not be ideal for these two to be filled by trains with end doors, but with the way the electrification project has collapsed temporarily I cannot think of any other way of increasing capacity and reducing journey times on the route other than buying standard bi-mode AT300s and trying to make as many of the other services as long as possible. Had the electrification been complete for 2018 as originally planned, I have no doubts that the bidders would have picked the Desiro Verve or the AT200, both designs being capable of 125mph and having wide suburban-style doorways. If Hitachi or Siemens offer their designs with enough diesel engines underneath to be able to run as quickly over the Pennines as the current 185s can, then I have no doubt that they would prefer to get them as well. In any case, end doors aren't a problem if the train is long enough for people to be able to sit down. The solution I'm proposing would see AT300s used with as many carriages as possible and interiors set up for high capacity, not the piddly little Class 158 sets which used to cause so many problems.
You can set up the interior of a train however you like, you can put in as many seats as you like. But unless the doors and vestibules and gangways allow people to get in and out quickly then trains will be slow to load and unload, whether they have two coaches or 10. Just visit Reading and see how long it takes to get an HST back under way again. This will continue to be an issue with 800/801 operations, though it is to be hoped a lot of the Reading commuters can be encouraged to use the fast 387 formations, which will give them a better chance of a seat than on an already busy train arriving from further west.
You could order bi-mode AT300s for TPE but what do you do with them a few years down the line if the wiring eventually gets sorted out and an operator decides they would much rather have a common fleet of electric units - would a leasing company fund such a bi-mode order in the first place? Remember that a key factor in the lack of dmu orders was doubt about whether there would be enough work left to keep them running throughout their lifetime and earning leasing fees, which is not what the finance people want to hear.
One must always remember that this particular part of the current TPE franchise was not part of the original franchise agreement and when discussing such a matter, it is only fair to look to the events that led up to this addition of the TPE franchise and which organisation was the prime mover in that event happening.
If blame is held to be a needed entity in this matter, then let that blame fall squarely upon the shoulders of the organisation who deemed this action to be correct.
I'm well aware of how this service came to be part of TPE thanks. But we're not talking about the past here, we're talking about the way forward.
DfT has been messing around with the franchise map for two decades now, so I see no reason for them not to have another go, especially when you look at a situation where the TPE Scottish service is now able to use electric traction, is sharing the bulk of its route with Virgin West Coast anyway, and looks a sight more like a long-distance InterCity service than pretty much anything else in the TPE portfolio - while electrification of the North TPE route, which had brought the prospect of being able to deploy a common fleet of electric trains on that route and to Scotland, has now been shunted into a siding for who knows how long.