That is unfortunate. I wonder how many lives would have been saved anywhere in the world if all trains over say the past 100 years had had that capability to split in half in the event of such an incident?
Maybe this requirement could be looked at again?
There is also the issue of having 2 separate sub fleets to maintain, and having to ensure that units stick to their diagrammed routes. It’s not insurmountable but is a problem. If I were the DFT, I’d definitely look at it as a solution.
The options for rolling stock are probably reasonably summarised as -
1) keep units as 200m and reconfigure internally to increase capacity, ideally to around 600 seats. This means sacrificing first class and potentially the buffet, plus also removing bays of tables.
2) keep units at 2x200m, have 400m platforms at Crewe and maybe Carlisle, and use a lot more portion working - this makes the most of limited Handsacre paths but there is a big reliability issue. However, the trains are specified to attach and detach quickly and in theory reliably.
3) Add 2 trailer coaches, to bring units up to 10 coaches and adding around 150-170 seats per unit; but removing ability to portion work and reducing length of Birmingham services
4) as option 2 but lengthen Manchester Piccadilly to 400m; allowing these services to be full length. SDO to be used at Stockport, Wilmslow, Stoke and Macclesfield.
Currently, the funding is only available for option 1 - hence the FT article. Option 2 is however still a possibility.