Ah that's the answer. For some reason I thought they were BImodes. I must stay awake and pay attention.
Mechanically/technically the
class 801s are bi-modes, but because they only have one diesel engine their performance in diesel mode is so poor that
operationally they are EMUs.
I know we're in dreamland - but since the 91s would need some refurb anyway, regearing them might be an idea since they aren't even allowed up to 140. (For comparison, the 125mph capable Re460 seems to be pretty decent at accelerating 12 car double-deck trains, even if it's nowhere near as explosive as a Flirt - so I don't think you'd need to reduce the top usable speed to get good performance.)
I wouldn't re-gear them; the southern ECML is near the top of the list for resignalling with ETCS I believe. One of my hopes with Virgin's plans to retain a number of "pocket-rocket" IC225 sets was that they would be fitted with ETCS and finally be allowed to run at 140mph before their eventual withdrawal sometime in the 2030s.
And if more future electrification happens, such refurbished locos could be reused with e.g. the Mk5a.
And to increase capacity with the MK IV's, you could replace the DVT with new-build MK5a DT's (or use them as intermediate coaches for splitting trains).
Quite possibly they may be worth retaining for Mk5s but arguably the 88 is more readily suited and the likelihood of the Mk5s running at 125 seems limited to me.
TPE did specify 125mph capability for their mark 5s, presumably with York-Newcastle-Edinburgh in mind. If work on TransPennine electrification was in full swing right now, then replacing the 68s with 91s once that project was complete could have made sense. Sadly with the 91s already being over 25 years old and electrification not being something that can be done overnight; the wires across the Pennines aren't likely to be up much before 2030 by which time you'd only be a few years off needing new 125mph electric locos to haul the mark 5s anyway, so TPE would probably just go straight for new locos. Sadly I think at least 10 of the class 91s are likely to be scrapped well before their 40th birthday; their 40th birthday being the date after which I would believe they could be life-expired. I just hope that a way to keep some sets on the ECML as Virgin had planned is found, along with the Blackpool open-access operation going ahead, to ensure that not all the fleet goes to an early grave. And for the love of Britian, and the love of railways, make sure
both 91110 and 91131 are preserved.
The 800's offer more capacity and have better performance on electric for starters, added to which the 225 sets are approaching 30 years old. The 800's which replace the 91's are the electric only 801 variant and to use them on XC and MML you have to change them to the Bi-mode version for starters. The general consensus also seems to be that even the 802 variant operating in full power mode will not be good enough in Diesel mode to achieve the required specification of Bi-modes for the MML.
At the moment is that we are not sure whether the class 800s and 801s are able to utilise their full performance anyway due to the lack of an upgraded power supply north of Doncaster. In my opinion the East Coast TOC might as well keep using the IC225s on Edinburgh services at least. As for power requirements for a MML bi-mode, that depends on whether you are replacing Meridians or (as I think sensible) only EMT's IC125 fleet. In the latter case, while class 800s and 802s in their as-ordered formations might not 'cut the mustard', I think reforming part of the fleet into 8-car sets with six engine cars in each (meaning less engine cars in other sets, my prefered way of doing this being making the class 801s pure-electric with no diesel engine) would do the trick.
I disagree with end-doors being unsuitable. End-doors aren't suitable for trains stopping every 3 minutes, but above that they're perfectly fine. I travel on end-door trains operating very similar routes all the time (and the end-to-end passengers, who are the majority on many such trains, are happier for it). In fact, some would argue they are faster at boarding because people _have_ to move away from the doors with end-door boarding, whereasi with 1/3+2/3 boarding people inevitably try to stand close to the door, ending up causing blockages.
I wouldn't go as far as putting a number like '3 minutes' on it, but I agree with you that the increased dwell times caused by end doors are not the problem they are made out to be unless the train is making frequent stops at busy stations (rural halts like on the Heart Of Wales are not a problem due to few passengers bording/alighting).