All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,270
OK - say this petition gets to the House of Lords. Let's briefly consider it:
Firstly, the millions of pounds of investment did not come from Virgin. It came from the taxpayer. Secondly, Virgin have only been running a "reliable service" since VHF started around 3 years ago. Even since then, they lag near the bottom of the punctuality tables, even thought they have some of the newest infrastructure and rolling stock.
Not true. Looking at some other First franchises, ScotRail achieve 89% passenger satisfaction (2% below Virgin) and TP Express 88% (3% below Virgin), despite both TOCs operating mostly commuter services. These are very impressive figures.
FGW and Virgin Trains are not comparable. FGW operates a large number of commuter services and branch lines. Satisfaction on commuter services is understandably lower, as is the case with most commuter TOCs in the South East (e.g. SWT, Southeastern, Southern, etc...). The lower satisfaction on FGW's commuter services skews their overall passenger satisfaction figures. Virgin, on the other hand, operate a flagship route with some of the newest rolling stock around - it is no surprise that their passenger satisfaction levels are high.
A more appropriate comparison would be Virgin Trains and First Hull Trains. First Hull Trains achieves higher passenger satisfaction than Virgin.
Not true. CrossCountry has done rather well in terms of reliability. There is no evidence to suggest that Virgin would have done any better.
In light of the above, I wonder what conclusion the House of Lords would reach?
Petition said:"We the undersigned urge the government to reconsider the decision to award the West Coast Mainline franchise to FirstGroup.
The West Coast Mainline's current value is thanks to millions of pounds of investment and commitment from Virgin Trains - they're not perfect, none are - but they have delivered a reliable service for 15 years and turned the line around."
Firstly, the millions of pounds of investment did not come from Virgin. It came from the taxpayer. Secondly, Virgin have only been running a "reliable service" since VHF started around 3 years ago. Even since then, they lag near the bottom of the punctuality tables, even thought they have some of the newest infrastructure and rolling stock.
Petition said:FirstGroup consistently rate amongst the worst of the train operators in passenger satisfaction surveys - they should show improvements in their existing services before being able to bid on more.
Not true. Looking at some other First franchises, ScotRail achieve 89% passenger satisfaction (2% below Virgin) and TP Express 88% (3% below Virgin), despite both TOCs operating mostly commuter services. These are very impressive figures.
FGW and Virgin Trains are not comparable. FGW operates a large number of commuter services and branch lines. Satisfaction on commuter services is understandably lower, as is the case with most commuter TOCs in the South East (e.g. SWT, Southeastern, Southern, etc...). The lower satisfaction on FGW's commuter services skews their overall passenger satisfaction figures. Virgin, on the other hand, operate a flagship route with some of the newest rolling stock around - it is no surprise that their passenger satisfaction levels are high.
A more appropriate comparison would be Virgin Trains and First Hull Trains. First Hull Trains achieves higher passenger satisfaction than Virgin.
Petition said:Any previous time Virgin have lost a bid in a rail tender the winner has failed to deliver promised plan and revenue - the East Coast is still under Government ownership.
Not true. CrossCountry has done rather well in terms of reliability. There is no evidence to suggest that Virgin would have done any better.
Petition said:The Government should look at more than the highest bidder - look what happened with G4S at London 2012.
In light of the above, I wonder what conclusion the House of Lords would reach?
Last edited:
