Should AT300's be ordered for CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains

[ryan125hst]

With the news that 19 AT300's have been order for Transpennine Express, with another 25 trains likely to be ordered soon, I thought i'd ask for your thoughts on the above.

The East Coast Main Line and Great Western Main Line will receive fleets of Class 800's and 801's, and Class 802's (essentially the same train but with uprated engines) have now been ordered for the Paddington to Penzance route as well as for Hull Trains. With a large number of these AT300's now on order, should the order be extended to CrossCountry and the Midland Mainline?

It's a well known fact that CrossCountry services are frequently over crowded. An order of 7 or 8 car bi-mode AT300's for the North East to South West services would allow this issue to be solved while having the added advantage that the trains would be able to work on electric mode when under the wires, putting an end to the long diesel under the wires sections that the Voyagers operate. This would then free up Voyagers to add capacity elsewhere, maybe on the Manchester routes, or to allow new routes to be started/withdrawn routes to be reinstated. It may also allow some Voyagers to go to Virgin Trains to give them more capacity.

The Midland Mainline is due to be electrified in the next decade, and it'd be a downgrade if intercity style trains weren't ordered to replace the HST's and Meridians. Should a fleet of electric AT300's be ordered to enter into service once the Midland Mainline is electrified? I'd imagine the line between Sheffield to Leeds will be electrified as part of the project as well?

As a final though, how about a fleet for the Great Eastern Main Line? I believe it has been mentioned before, yet so has using a Class 444 variant. Given the intercity status of the route, AT300's would probably be better suited.

With a factory set up in the UK to build these trains and various routes in need of extra capacity or conversion from diesel to bi-mode or electric operation, surely AT300's are a good option?

What do you think?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With the news that 19 AT300's have been order for Transpennine Express, with another 25 trains likely to be ordered soon, I thought i'd ask for your thoughts on the above.

The East Coast Main Line and Great Western Main Line will receive fleets of Class 800's and 801's, and Class 802's (essentially the same train but with uprated engines) have now been ordered for the Paddington to Penzance route as well as for Hull Trains. With a large number of these AT300's now on order, should the order be extended to CrossCountry and the Midland Mainline?

It's a well known fact that CrossCountry services are frequently over crowded. An order of 7 or 8 car bi-mode AT300's for the North East to South West services would allow this issue to be solved while having the added advantage that the trains would be able to work on electric mode when under the wires, putting an end to the long diesel under the wires sections that the Voyagers operate. This would then free up Voyagers to add capacity elsewhere, maybe on the Manchester routes, or to allow new routes to be started/withdrawn routes to be reinstated. It may also allow some Voyagers to go to Virgin Trains to give them more capacity.

The Midland Mainline is due to be electrified in the next decade, and it'd be a downgrade if intercity style trains weren't ordered to replace the HST's and Meridians. Should a fleet of electric AT300's be ordered to enter into service once the Midland Mainline is electrified? I'd imagine the line between Sheffield to Leeds will be electrified as part of the project as well?

As a final though, how about a fleet for the Great Eastern Main Line? I believe it has been mentioned before, yet so has using a Class 444 variant. Given the intercity status of the route, AT300's would probably be better suited.

With a factory set up in the UK to build these trains and various routes in need of extra capacity or conversion from diesel to bi-mode or electric operation, surely AT300's are a good option?

What do you think?

The franchising timetable will dictate what happens.
XC is due for a Direct Award for 3 years to 2019, but it is unlikely new trains will figure with such a short period left.
Similarly EMT is due for retender in 2017, which is when new stock might be considered. But there is no rush with electrification now delayed.
The bids are in for East Anglia (decision in July). They will want new EMUs but who knows what the bidders will go for.
125mph is not called for, nor bi-modes, so more likely a straight EMU like the AT200s Scotrail has ordered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I think bi-mode AT300s of at least 6 coaches, ideally 7, would be a good choice for XC.

Failing that, if the TPE CAF LHCS happens, some more of that.

 

[MrB]

This would then free up Voyagers to add capacity elsewhere, maybe on the Manchester routes, or to allow new routes to be started/withdrawn routes to be reinstated. It may also allow some Voyagers to go to Virgin Trains to give them more capacity.

Wasn't there a thread recently about the voyagers which concluded that they're not much use on any other routes?

 

[The Ham]

Wasn't there a thread recently about the voyagers which concluded that they're not much use on any other routes?

As they are they are of little use, however if they are extended (by stirring/scraping end units) then they could be of a lot of use.

I had suggested that as up to 10 coach sets they could be used by Chiltern, SWT (once electrification reaches Salisbury) and/or Scot Rail.

 

[jopsuk]

The replacement fleets will be decided by determining a specification, inviting tenders and choosing the stock that best meets the tender specification (including price). It would be foolish to be prescriptive- why give Hitachi that advantage?

 

[47802]

Well XC there is the issue of the HST's and clearly a decision on those is going to have to be made in the direct award period, and the only obvious choices appear to be to make the HST's compliant or buy some AT300's as a replacement but I suspect that Hitachi may struggling with capacity now to get them built before the 2020 deadline.

With MML not a dissimilar situation except there more time for the franchise winner to make the decision, a small fleet of AT300's to replace HST's which would allow for off wire diversions and destinations in conjunction eventually with an EMU fleet to replace the 222's might not be a bad choice but again could Hitachi build them before the HST's need upgrading.

 

[Haydn1971]

Next EMT franchise starts in April 2018, so I'd not expect any new trains until at least 2020, but the elephant in the room is the delayed MML electrification. The route utilisation study recommended 10 car IEPs for MML, but the 158's will need urgent work soon and are getting unfit for what is effectively an intercity service between Liverpool and Norwich. The 800/801s have consistently been specified as 5/9 car units so far, but can IIRC go to 12 cars, by the time XC starts its new franchise in late 2021, even a fleet of 5/9 car IEP would be useless... I'd expect by 2021/2 we shall see some bi-modes cascaded from other areas as electrification spreads and bi-modes become displaced by new all electric multiple units, plus more work at Hitachi for extending the current orders of 800/801/802/80x to be extended from the current 5/9 car units, could be 6/12 but a mix of retaining 5 cars extending some to 7 and the 9 cars to 12 would give greater flexibility for running 5, 7 & 5+7/12 car units as passenger demand grows

 

[Emblematic]

The most urgent problem both XC and EM franchises have is what to do about their HSTs with the accessibility deadline approaching. Whilst the AT300 might be a good fit, even if ordered today they would not arrive in time for the HSTs to be withdrawn before 2020. As mentioned above, ideally rolling stock decisions would be left to franchise renewal, allowing the bidders freedom to propose whatever they see fit. In this case it's more likely that the DfT will arrange suitable cascades or refurbishments during the direct award periods, so the new franchisees don't have a crisis to deal with, and can propose replacement stock (if needed) with more reasonable timelines.

 

[Haydn1971]

Well XC there is the issue of the HST's and clearly a decision on those is going to have to be made in the direct award period, and the only obvious choices appear to be to make the HST's compliant or buy some AT300's as a replacement but I suspect that Hitachi may struggling with capacity now to get them built before the 2020 deadline.

With MML not a dissimilar situation except there more time for the franchise winner to make the decision, a small fleet of AT300's to replace HST's which would allow for off wire diversions and destinations in conjunction eventually with an EMU fleet to replace the 222's might not be a bad choice but again could Hitachi build them before the HST's need upgrading.

Another application for the CAF Mk5s after short service with TPE ? Perhaps another direct award order for CAF to build enough to replace the Mk3s in XC/EMT service

 

[edwin_m]

In my opinion: yes for XC but no for EMT (or strictly speaking their successor franchises).

As noted many XC services run under the wires for long distances, the current record being Doncaster to Glasgow via Edinburgh but with a few infills Derby to Glasgow is quite possible within a decade or so. Elimination of all that diesel running, especially by fuel-hungry Voyagers, ought to go a fair way to paying for the extra costs of a bi-mode. The obvious difficulty is what to do with the Voyagers - I suspect if they are just taken off-lease the DfT franchises will suddenly find that the ROSCOs start charging risk premiums on anything else they lease!

For EMT any bi-modes would take several years to build and therefore use their diesel power for less than five years as electrification progressed northwards. The sections that the HST/Meridian fleet uses today that won't be electrified are a small and non-core part of their routes, not sufficient to justify the extra cost of bi-mode capability and I expect them to be worked as diesel connecting services or in some cases dropped completely. The issue here is what replaces the HSTs after the 2020 accessibility deadline, but I suspect we will see a derogation from the more difficult requirements (power doors in particular) on the basis of a strictly limited remaining lifetime.

An extremely elegant solution would be to introduce some bi-modes on the XC service allowing Voyagers to be cascaded to fill the gap at EMT. However this would require some very optimistic assumptions on build dates, as well as a level of forward planning that, shall we say, hasn't been a feature of recent franchising.

 

[Emblematic]

Mk4s might be the better short-term option, saves stock selection being driven solely by what can be obtained in time. Mk4 for MML, some cascaded meridians for XC possibly?

 

[asylumxl]

Mk4s might be the better short-term option, saves stock selection being driven solely by what can be obtained in time. Mk4 for MML, some cascaded meridians for XC possibly?

Previous threads (and I believe route studies) have concluded this is very unlikely to happen. Sorry

 

[Emblematic]

The issue here is what replaces the HSTs after the 2020 accessibility deadline, but I suspect we will see a derogation from the more difficult requirements (power doors in particular) on the basis of a strictly limited remaining lifetime.

I'm not saying you're wrong, indeed you may be spot on, but if that does come to pass it would be an utter disgrace. Law was passed in 2011, there's really no excuse for not meeting the deadline nine years later.

 

[47802]

​

Mk4s might be the better short-term option, saves stock selection being driven solely by what can be obtained in time. Mk4 for MML, some cascaded meridians for XC possibly?

Well apart from the issue as to whether they would be freed up in time what you going to haul them with exactly?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not saying you're wrong, indeed you may be spot on, but if that does come to pass it would be an utter disgrace. Law was passed in 2011, there's really no excuse for not meeting the deadline nine years later.

I wouldn't go that far given trains typically have a 30 to 40 year lifespan, and modifying slam door stock isn't particularly easy or cheap

 

[Emblematic]

Previous threads (and I believe route studies) have concluded this is very unlikely to happen. Sorry

No need to apologise, I don't own shares in Angel Trains
I'm just increasingly interested to see what the plan for MML and XC actually is. I hope there is one...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well apart from the issue as to whether they would be freed up in time what you going to haul them with exactly?

Are the 67s all earning their keep? Heard of plenty of things they've been displaced from, little they've been put on to. Failing that, convert some 43s to standard drawgear and ETS.

I wouldn't go that far given trains typically have a 30 to 40 year lifespan, and modifying slam door stock isn't particularly easy or cheap

But others have done / are doing it, so it's no excuse still. Still time for door conversions of Mk3, doesn't have to be a full Chiltern power door job.

 

[DarloRich]

The replacement fleets will be decided by determining a specification, inviting tenders and choosing the stock that best meets the tender specification (including price). It would be foolish to be prescriptive- why give Hitachi that advantage?

is the correct answer!

 

[47802]

No need to apologise, I don't own shares in Angel Trains
I'm just increasingly interested to see what the plan for MML and XC actually is. I hope there is one...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are the 67s all earning their keep? Heard of plenty of things they've been displaced from, little they've been put on to. Failing that, convert some 43s to standard drawgear and ETS.



But others have done / are doing it, so it's no excuse still. Still time for door conversions of Mk3, doesn't have to be a full Chiltern power door job.

I suspect fixing the doors on HST's is the more likely solution than your MK4 suggestion, but even if you go for an internal door handle solution its not that cheap as the current central locking system isn't regarded as good enough and will need to be modified. There is now supposedly a cheaper option of sliding power doors which is cheaper than the Chiltern solution but its still not that cheap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and there is the answer

So the fact that all Bi-Modes so far are Hitachi is coincidence is it? clearly Hitachi have a massive head start for Bi-modes, if you want an EMU then yes things are a bit different and OK if the train specified by such as the DFT then a strict specification and tender process will be required but that may not be the case with a private company such as a TOC bidder.

 

[thenorthern]

The CrossCountry stock is still relatively new by rolling stock standards so I don't think that CrossCountry will get more stock in the short term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The CrossCountry stock is still relatively new by rolling stock standards so I don't think that CrossCountry will get more stock in the short term.

It can be as new as it likes, but there is about 2/3 to half as much of it as they actually require.

 

[jopsuk]

So the fact that all Bi-Modes so far are Hitachi is coincidence is it? clearly Hitachi have a massive head start for Bi-modes, if you want an EMU then yes things are a bit different and OK if the train specified by such as the DFT then a strict specification and tender process will be required but that may not be the case with a private company such as a TOC bidder.

So far outside of the core IEP orders only First Group companies have ordered Bi-Modes. I suspect they have a good relationship with Hitachi, all above board, that means they can good deals on a product they have performance guarantees (though not yet experience with!) on.

With Hitachi in the middle of demonstrating that it is a workable concept within the UK loading gauge, I'd have thought that Siemens, CAF, Bombardier etc are paying close attention and playing catch up.

 

[47802]

So far outside of the core IEP orders only First Group companies have ordered Bi-Modes. I suspect they have a good relationship with Hitachi, all above board, that means they can good deals on a product they have performance guarantees (though not yet experience with!) on.

With Hitachi in the middle of demonstrating that it is a workable concept within the UK loading gauge, I'd have thought that Siemens, CAF, Bombardier etc are paying close attention and playing catch up.

Well that's possible but it seems likely to me that the vast majority of orders for Intercity Bi-Modes has been sewn up by Hitachi and it may not be worth there while, just as Bombardier don't seem to consider it worthwhile making DMU anymore.

In the case MML well you could get a small fleet of Bi-modes or alternatively fix the HST's and then a new all EMU fleet.

For XC you could order a Bi-mode fleet as HST replacement and some capacity uplift but probably wouldn't be that big an order, alternatively fix the HST's maybe take a few more redundant ones and then wait for the Meridians to be released.

 

[Jonny]

Wasn't there a thread recently about the voyagers which concluded that they're not much use on any other routes?

Not even Northern Connect?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The replacement fleets will be decided by determining a specification, inviting tenders and choosing the stock that best meets the tender specification (including price). It would be foolish to be prescriptive- why give Hitachi that advantage?

If the AT300 seems like a good idea, then it is possible to tweak the specs so that any alternative has to meet certain criteria.

 

[ryan125hst]

The franchising timetable will dictate what happens.
XC is due for a Direct Award for 3 years to 2019, but it is unlikely new trains will figure with such a short period left.
Similarly EMT is due for retender in 2017, which is when new stock might be considered. But there is no rush with electrification now delayed.
The bids are in for East Anglia (decision in July). They will want new EMUs but who knows what the bidders will go for.
125mph is not called for, nor bi-modes, so more likely a straight EMU like the AT200s Scotrail has ordered.

It's annoying that the fact that the railways are franchised causes so many delays with ordering new trains. I understand that the companies don't want to order new trains when they won't benefit from them, but XC really should be thinking about increasing capacity now. New trains don't happen over night so the sooner new trains are ordered, the better.

Failing that, if the TPE CAF LHCS happens, some more of that.

Where did you here that? It's the first I've heard of new LHCS other than the Caledonian Sleeper.

The replacement fleets will be decided by determining a specification, inviting tenders and choosing the stock that best meets the tender specification (including price). It would be foolish to be prescriptive- why give Hitachi that advantage?

A fair comment, although Hitachi are the only manufacture of 125 mph bi-mode trains for the UK market at present which is why I mention them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well XC there is the issue of the HST's and clearly a decision on those is going to have to be made in the direct award period, and the only obvious choices appear to be to make the HST's compliant or buy some AT300's as a replacement but I suspect that Hitachi may struggling with capacity now to get them built before the 2020 deadline.

With MML not a dissimilar situation except there more time for the franchise winner to make the decision, a small fleet of AT300's to replace HST's which would allow for off wire diversions and destinations in conjunction eventually with an EMU fleet to replace the 222's might not be a bad choice but again could Hitachi build them before the HST's need upgrading.

The most urgent problem both XC and EM franchises have is what to do about their HSTs with the accessibility deadline approaching. Whilst the AT300 might be a good fit, even if ordered today they would not arrive in time for the HSTs to be withdrawn before 2020. As mentioned above, ideally rolling stock decisions would be left to franchise renewal, allowing the bidders freedom to propose whatever they see fit. In this case it's more likely that the DfT will arrange suitable cascades or refurbishments during the direct award periods, so the new franchisees don't have a crisis to deal with, and can propose replacement stock (if needed) with more reasonable timelines.

I forgot about that deadline. I was thinking that if new trains were ordered in the next couple of years, then they'd be built after the IEP's and AT300's currently on order, meaning a delivery in the early 2020's. Could a dispensation be granted as long as new trains were ordered?

Next EMT franchise starts in April 2018, so I'd not expect any new trains until at least 2020, but the elephant in the room is the delayed MML electrification. The route utilisation study recommended 10 car IEPs for MML, but the 158's will need urgent work soon and are getting unfit for what is effectively an intercity service between Liverpool and Norwich. The 800/801s have consistently been specified as 5/9 car units so far, but can IIRC go to 12 cars, by the time XC starts its new franchise in late 2021, even a fleet of 5/9 car IEP would be useless... I'd expect by 2021/2 we shall see some bi-modes cascaded from other areas as electrification spreads and bi-modes become displaced by new all electric multiple units, plus more work at Hitachi for extending the current orders of 800/801/802/80x to be extended from the current 5/9 car units, could be 6/12 but a mix of retaining 5 cars extending some to 7 and the 9 cars to 12 would give greater flexibility for running 5, 7 & 5+7/12 car units as passenger demand grows

When is it predicted that the electrification will reach Sheffield now? I'd never though about having AT300's on the Norwich to Liverpool route. It's probably too slow for them though really. AT200's might be a better option, assuming they could be made in a bi-mode version?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well that's possible but it seems likely to me that the vast majority of orders for Intercity Bi-Modes has been sewn up by Hitachi and it may not be worth there while, just as Bombardier don't seem to consider it worthwhile making DMU anymore.

In the case MML well you could get a small fleet of Bi-modes or alternatively fix the HST's and then a new all EMU fleet.

For XC you could order a Bi-mode fleet as HST replacement and some capacity uplift but probably wouldn't be that big an order, alternatively fix the HST's maybe take a few more redundant ones and then wait for the Meridians to be released.

I didn't think that was that much between the bi-mode and the electric only modes cost wise, on the scheme of things. Something like 2.4 million per carriage vs 2.8 million per carriage comes to mind, and that was for the IEP's which are more expensive due to the maintenance contract included. Considering that even the electric only version also have one diesel engine per set for use in emergencies anyway, I think the design of the bi-mode and electric only trains are the same other than the number of engines. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I'd say the only difference is the extra engines, generators, fuel tanks etc. In other words, I doubt they'd be much difference for Hitachi in terms of how viable it is to built them. I may be wrong though.

Not even Northern Connect?

Would Northern Connect need them now that the new 100 mph air conditioned trains have been ordered? Surely the Voyagers have larger engines which would make them more costly to run as well has having fewer seats per carriage than the new CAF trains?

If the AT300 seems like a good idea, then it is possible to tweak the specs so that any alternative has to meet certain criteria.

I'd have thought so. The AT300 seems to be easily modified to suit different markets as can be seen with the uprated engines on the Paddington to Penzance sets as well as the Transpennine sets. Presumably it can be specified that the engines need to have so much horsepower, or more likely- they'll state that it should have a certain acceleration on certain gradients and should be able to reach a certain speed within so many minutes for example. I'd have thought the same would be true for other areas such as the interior. Specifying this would allow other manufactures to design a competitor that also meets the spec.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The DfT could make Arriva procure more rolling stock as part of a direct award, just as with the GWR order of AT300s for the West Country. A reasonably small order of AT300s to be maintained at the depots being built for the ECML and GWML fleets wouldn't be a burden on future holders of the franchise, as if they have their own plans for new rolling stock the direct award AT300s would be easy to cascade away to another operator once their plans are in place.

If a way of de-tuning the 22xs for use on non-InterCity routes can be found that will probably end their use on XC completely. The increase in capacity and reduction in running costs from having a consistent fleet of AT300s running services would be considerable. If First can justify a massive expansion of the TransPennine Express fleet while having to serve fewer routes, presumably so could CrossCountry.

 

[Emblematic]

I forgot about that deadline. I was thinking that if new trains were ordered in the next couple of years, then they'd be built after the IEP's and AT300's currently on order, meaning a delivery in the early 2020's. Could a dispensation be granted as long as new trains were ordered?

My understanding of the act is that a dispensation can only be granted if the discrepancy is minor and the 'essential requirements' are met. These typically cover things like positions of door buttons, headroom, door widths etc. where technical compliance would make little practical improvement but would be disproportionately difficult to alter. Something like a completely non-compliant door would need something more like an exemption order, i.e. secondary legislation. Not something that will be easily obtained, I believe.

Here's the relevant section of RIR 2011, see if you agree:

Dispensations

46.—(1) The Competent Authority may grant a conditional or unconditional dispensation from notified national technical rules for a particular case or description of case if the Competent Authority is satisfied that the dispensation is consistent with the essential requirements.

 

[jimm]

I
I forgot about that deadline. I was thinking that if new trains were ordered in the next couple of years, then they'd be built after the IEP's and AT300's currently on order, meaning a delivery in the early 2020's. Could a dispensation be granted as long as new trains were ordered?

There is no reason that you could not get them earlier than the early 2020s should that be what is needed. The confirmed GWR order to be built in Italy will be delivered from May to December 2018, so there is no reason that production line could not keep running into 2019 after those sets are built - it may do anyway if there are going to be nine more 5-car AT300s for GWR and the proposed Hull Trains order for four sets goes ahead as well.

I'd have thought so. The AT300 seems to be easily modified to suit different markets as can be seen with the uprated engines on the Paddington to Penzance sets as well as the Transpennine sets. Presumably it can be specified that the engines need to have so much horsepower, or more likely- they'll state that it should have a certain acceleration on certain gradients and should be able to reach a certain speed within so many minutes for example. I'd have thought the same would be true for other areas such as the interior. Specifying this would allow other manufactures to design a competitor that also meets the spec.

How many more times do I need to point out that the AT300/Class 802 engines are not 'uprated', nor are Class 800 engines 'derated'. The difference is that the AT300 engine management system will be set up so the engines can deliver full output all the time. In normal operation the 800 engine management system will call for a lower power output but if an engine fails, then the others will go to full output operation to compensate.

The DfT could make Arriva procure more rolling stock as part of a direct award, just as with the GWR order of AT300s for the West Country. A reasonably small order of AT300s to be maintained at the depots being built for the ECML and GWML fleets wouldn't be a burden on future holders of the franchise, as if they have their own plans for new rolling stock the direct award AT300s would be easy to cascade away to another operator once their plans are in place.

The DfT did not make GWR order AT300s. On the contrary the impetus for new trains came from GWR, which produced a business case that persuaded DfT to allow the order to proceed, rather than life-extending some of the HSTs.

 

[Emblematic]

There is no reason that you could not get them earlier than the early 2020s should that be what is needed. The confirmed GWR order to be built in Italy will be delivered from May to December 2018, so there is no reason that production line could not keep running into 2019 after those sets are built - it may do anyway if there are going to be nine more 5-car AT300s for GWR and the proposed Hull Trains order for four sets goes ahead as well.

Ah, so maybe you haven't heard about the Transpennine Express order for 19 AT300 sets announced today? That's most of the options and 2019 deliveries accounted for.

How many more times do I need to point out that the AT300/Class 802 engines are not 'uprated', nor are Class 800 engines 'derated'. The difference is that the AT300 engine management system will be set up so the engines can deliver full output all the time. In normal operation the 800 engine management system will call for a lower power output but if an engine fails, then the others will go to full output operation to compensate.

So two modes on the EMS, one of which derates, the other uprates. Got it.

 

[thenorthern]

Problem for CrossCountry is that most passengers don't do end to end journeys and with some end to end times such as Plymouth to Glasgow taking 10 hours its very hard to justify lengthening trains when for large parts of a journey the extra seats won't be utilized.

Considering how much under the wires CrossCountry trains do it would make sense in my opinion though to have bi-mode trains.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The DfT did not make GWR order AT300s. On the contrary the impetus for new trains came from GWR, which produced a business case that persuaded DfT to allow the order to proceed, rather than life-extending some of the HSTs.

I should have said that the DfT required them to come up a plan for the rolling stock used for services to Devon and Cornwall. The DfT didn't specify that they had to use new stock or any other solution, but FirstGroup clearly found that new trains would have the best business case. What the DfT could do for XC is insist on a plan to replace the HSTs while relieving the worst of the capacity issues. Arriva would then have to work out whether it would be best to life-extend a larger pool of HSTs or sandwich Mk4 rakes between HST power cars or acquire AT300s or whatever other scheme might be possible. Since FirstGroup found it best to buy new trains rather than life-extend the HSTs even though the amount of electric running on Devon/Cornwall services is tiny, I don't think it's beyond reason to suggest that Arriva might find the same thing. Like FirstGroup, Arriva could use the opportunity to buy options for extra AT300s in future, which would help them win the XC franchise when it does come up for renewal.

Problem for CrossCountry is that most passengers don't do end to end journeys and with some end to end times such as Plymouth to Glasgow taking 10 hours its very hard to justify lengthening trains when for large parts of a journey the extra seats won't be utilized.

Considering how much under the wires CrossCountry trains do it would make sense in my opinion though to have bi-mode trains.

However, there are a lot of people making a lot of these short journeys. If a long train is going to be full most of the time, even if most of the people on board only stay for a few stops, that doesn't work against buying longer trains.

If AT300s were ordered for XC I would very much expect them to be in 5 car formations. A 5 car AT300 would represent a massive increase in capacity over a 4 car 220, so without any doubling up there would still be benefits over today. When appropriate, a second 5 car set can be coupled up to handle the peak loadings that happen on the network. Even if that did mean there was some excess capacity on some parts of the network this wouldn't be a great issue, since the excess capacity can be used up by yield management.