I have read all posts in this thread with great interest, I don't work in any capacity connected to the railway (never have and probably never will) but I'm going to throw my two pence worth out there and see what people think.
With obvious consideration needed for ensuring a viable business model and ongoing successful operation, particularly outgoing operational costs and other overheads, the railway should be run with the interests of the passengers (its paying customers) at the forefront of its decision making and actions as DarloRich in particular eludes to several times in posts. For example, I'm very confident that if a poll were to be taken of 1000 daily XC travellers, over 90% would not be disappointed if an ex GWR HST with 7 or 8 carriages turned up on their service as opposed to what is essentially a 3 or 4-car (by the time the driving ends, ex-shop areas and other non-passenger accommodation areas are removed) Voyager.
Rolling stock cascades / replacements in my humble opinion should have been and still should be something along the lines of the following (I'll bring in the WCML as the Pendolino's and 221's are affected too):
Short term:
All XC 220's and 221's are replaced by HST's ex GWR and VTEC (displaced by new 80x units), giving an all-HST fleet to XC. Yes there would be some variety in seating arrangements, seating types etc but surely in the 21st century this can be managed for a relatively short period.
The WCML 221's are replaced by 90 + mk3 rakes of stock (displaced from GA by new 720/745/755/7xx whatever they are units), with 67's / 68's either topping or replacing the 90 as appropriate over non-electrified sections.
Long term:
All of the above HST and loco-hauled mk3 rolling stock on WCML and XC is replaced by new-build bi-mode class 80x units, probably 11-car for WCML and 9-car for XC in my view (decision to be made whether to have an all bi-mode fleet for WCML to give total operational flexibility or a majority of electric only units with a smaller number of bi-modes to mirror the 221's and 390's at present which presents operational constraints).
All 220's and 221's are removed from XC and WCML, stripped back to a shell internally, given a half-life complete refurbishment which improves the passenger saloon interiors vastly as well as any required mechanical work, and are sent to Scotland. These fulfil duties for which the HST's will be used as well as others as required / appropriate, thereby releasing 15x and 170 units for short and medium distance work elsewhere or to strengthen other services in Scotland.
Slight digression – the order for these new units would also include additional vehicles to increase all ECML 9-car 80x units to 11-car.
The changes needed are much more deeply rooted than 'this train can't work that service because that ROSCO owns it and leases it to that TOC who doesn't get on with that TOC because they always make them late' nonsense. The disability compliance date needs postponing, rolling stock needs moving around / ordering / replacing, and most importantly a proper action plan is needed – not just for XC but for the entire UK network.
I'm well aware that those with a much greater knowledge than I will ever have will reply to this with numerous reasons why none of what I have suggested can happen, why I'm deluded for thinking it ever could etc – and that's fine. I won't reply with any abuse, negativity etc.
But my views will remain unchanged, as I'm sure DarloRich's will.
To summarise – my above suggestions bring short-term moderate pain (putting up with 220's and 221's for a bit longer but in the knowledge that good things are coming) but long term gain for the railway's paying customers. In reality and with what is happening / going to happen, all I can see for the railway's passengers is long term severe pain.
Over and out.
With obvious consideration needed for ensuring a viable business model and ongoing successful operation, particularly outgoing operational costs and other overheads, the railway should be run with the interests of the passengers (its paying customers) at the forefront of its decision making and actions as DarloRich in particular eludes to several times in posts. For example, I'm very confident that if a poll were to be taken of 1000 daily XC travellers, over 90% would not be disappointed if an ex GWR HST with 7 or 8 carriages turned up on their service as opposed to what is essentially a 3 or 4-car (by the time the driving ends, ex-shop areas and other non-passenger accommodation areas are removed) Voyager.
Rolling stock cascades / replacements in my humble opinion should have been and still should be something along the lines of the following (I'll bring in the WCML as the Pendolino's and 221's are affected too):
Short term:
All XC 220's and 221's are replaced by HST's ex GWR and VTEC (displaced by new 80x units), giving an all-HST fleet to XC. Yes there would be some variety in seating arrangements, seating types etc but surely in the 21st century this can be managed for a relatively short period.
The WCML 221's are replaced by 90 + mk3 rakes of stock (displaced from GA by new 720/745/755/7xx whatever they are units), with 67's / 68's either topping or replacing the 90 as appropriate over non-electrified sections.
Long term:
All of the above HST and loco-hauled mk3 rolling stock on WCML and XC is replaced by new-build bi-mode class 80x units, probably 11-car for WCML and 9-car for XC in my view (decision to be made whether to have an all bi-mode fleet for WCML to give total operational flexibility or a majority of electric only units with a smaller number of bi-modes to mirror the 221's and 390's at present which presents operational constraints).
All 220's and 221's are removed from XC and WCML, stripped back to a shell internally, given a half-life complete refurbishment which improves the passenger saloon interiors vastly as well as any required mechanical work, and are sent to Scotland. These fulfil duties for which the HST's will be used as well as others as required / appropriate, thereby releasing 15x and 170 units for short and medium distance work elsewhere or to strengthen other services in Scotland.
Slight digression – the order for these new units would also include additional vehicles to increase all ECML 9-car 80x units to 11-car.
The changes needed are much more deeply rooted than 'this train can't work that service because that ROSCO owns it and leases it to that TOC who doesn't get on with that TOC because they always make them late' nonsense. The disability compliance date needs postponing, rolling stock needs moving around / ordering / replacing, and most importantly a proper action plan is needed – not just for XC but for the entire UK network.
I'm well aware that those with a much greater knowledge than I will ever have will reply to this with numerous reasons why none of what I have suggested can happen, why I'm deluded for thinking it ever could etc – and that's fine. I won't reply with any abuse, negativity etc.
But my views will remain unchanged, as I'm sure DarloRich's will.
To summarise – my above suggestions bring short-term moderate pain (putting up with 220's and 221's for a bit longer but in the knowledge that good things are coming) but long term gain for the railway's paying customers. In reality and with what is happening / going to happen, all I can see for the railway's passengers is long term severe pain.
Over and out.