Definitely cheaper to build new trains.
Do we have sources for this or is it just repeated speculation? Is it something that just applies to Eurostars because it seems a lot of other trains get mid-life rebuilds, including TGVs?
My suspicion is that the decision to buy new trains was an attempt to support the Alstom AGV that backfired when Siemens put in a bid they couldn't ignore. Spending a billion on new stock when you are barely turning a profit doesn't seem like sensible business to me, but then I will never understand the laws of French economics - witness the purchasing of unnecessary TGVs just to support the Belfort plant recently.
If refurbishing e300s / TMSTs wasn't viable, why are they bothering with a small fleet of them?
Just completely not possible! - There are many more jumper cables on a power car/R1 side than at the R9 (Coach 9 - R stands for Remorque which is french for trailer)... There are also many auxillaries that talk to each other from the R1 that are needed, so the tecnical requirements are prohibitive. The train is stupidly complicated as it is - Trying these things is just a no no im afraid. The amount of "fudging" they did to cram 4 trailers worth of stuff to other areas on the NOL sets was bad enough.
The additional jumpers from the power car to R1 are surely about supplying power and control to the powered bogie under that trailer, and hotel power to the train? Why would those be needed if you are just connecting a power car to R9? The control cables will be there anyway going to the usual power car at R18, which could still allow control from either end. Doesn't sound like a big deal. The R1 bogie could still be powered from its adjacent power car or have the motors removed.
I think the original plan was to have split "long sets" for the North of London services. As you say it was technically impossible, hence the shortened NoL sets being built instead.
As the trains are supposed to be able to split and run totally independently of the other half in an emergency anyway, this doesn't seems likely. Each rake (power car + R1 to R9, R10 - R18 + power car) is in effect meant to be a separate train. Why could a driving cab not have been put at the end of R9 and R10?
Seems more likely this was down to the understood regulation that one part of the train had to stop next to an emergency exit in the Channel Tunnel and all pax had to be able to walk through the train to it - which of course Deutsche Bahn was able to overturn. Had Eurostar or the authorities bothered to do this in 1994, maybe we would have had services to some more destinations.
It would have been the mockup then.
There is such a mock-up in Train World in Brussels. Maybe it is the same one moved there?
