If anything, an all-80x fleet would have been better in just about every way other than for loco-haulage enthusiasts.
Spot on. For starters: greater flexibility and utilisation of trains and personnel; reduced training needs for drivers, train crew, maintenance staff; fewer spare parts retained at depots; quicker introduction into service.
The unfolding covid-19 situation, and need for fewer trains, has partly masked the ongoing issues with getting the Nova3s into service - I understand there are still communication issues between the 68s and DTs. Although it's noted above that TPE have been short of units, they're still unable to put more than 3 out of 13 (under 24%!) of Nova3s in service on any particular day, many months after all sets had been produced.
The ongoing issues with CAF products in terms of design, build quality, reliability and travelling experience documented on the relevant Mk5, 195, 331, 397 and Scottish Sleeper forums compare unfavourably with trains from other manufacturers (putting it mildly). Add to that suggestions that design and build quality issues of CAF products are likely to result in increased ongoing maintenance, reduced availability and shorter working lives - not helped by the very limited and costly options for subsequently converting diesel only variants to bi-mode, and they start to look like costly purchases - and probably more expensive than other manufacturers when looking at total cost of ownership over their lifetimes. I can't help thinking that the owners and operators of CAF trains (ROSCOs, Northern, TPE, Scottish Sleeper, WMR, TfW, and whatever organisations succeed them in the post-franchise era), will be counting the increased costs of ownership and ruing the decision to purchase CAF products until they can get them off their hands. They may have looked cheap initially, but experience is proving otherwise. It appears than on the railways, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for.
