• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

First win Intercity West Coast franchise

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,923
Location
Mold, Clwyd
How many XC users noticed? My wife still talks about the "Virgin" trains to Birmingham (from Sheffield) - I wonder if you asked 100 XC users whether their service was run by Virgin or Arriva you'd find more said Virgin?

That's because Arriva can't be bothered to put their name on the outside of their trains (unlike with ATW).
You have to be suspicious of TOCs who don't want their parent brand associated with the trains they run.
NX used to be like that (still is with c2c).
At least First are very happy to do it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,927
Location
Fenny Stratford
Wow, you have issues buddy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What i do have an issue with is Virgin using public gullibility and brand awareness to try and suggest that they are the saviours of the railway (in a Chris Moyles stlyee!) in this country and that no one else cares or could possibly run the route in a similar or, god forbid, better manner. I also have an issue with them presenting the current WCML position as their work alone (or even their work in the majority!) as it plainly isn't.

I also have issues with people who are stupid enough to lap up this spoon fed PR guff and swallow any old puff piece as if it is the truth. Read the facebook comments. It is embarrassing. Most of them have no clue what is going on, no clue how the railway works and no clue that Virgin are manipulating thier gullibility for their own ends. They simply associated the brand Virgin with good fun exciting things and the warm fuzzy image their PR leaves.

Virgin, or at least the management, are using this stupidity to try and justify their petulant spoilt child like behavior.

Virgin lost - If they think it is unfair there is a route for them to follow to lodge an official protest. This isn't it.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,573
Location
Macclesfield
Why do Bombardier say you can then?
Reportedly in their most recent discussions they have come to the conclusion that they cannot, for the reasons that Nym has outlined. The five carriage units could be lengthened by the addition of two pantograph cars, but not one.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I think theres a very vocal group on here that want First to win and (and secretly) fail as it furthers the renationalisation agenda, in the wider populace the vast majority prefers Virgin, accept it, its true no matter how much you moan about media coverage or unfair Virgin stunts just as it was true that Siemens beat Bombardier both technically and on price. Clearly there are issues over the award with the Dft's own scoring saying the Virgin bid was superior but lost because First bid 15% higher not within a 10% margin that allowed them to award to the better bid not just the higher bid. If you think the views of the people dont matter and they just need to be guided to the right (your) decision then ride on comrade Hitler.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
Ah, we got 1262 posts in before Godwin was proved right... Not a bad effort guys.

WatcherZero - Indeed, however how many will just be absorbed by the Virgin brand? Surely substance is infinitely more important than than style here, which I fear is what the public are missing when they swallow Virgin's words hook, line and sinker.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,927
Location
Fenny Stratford
I think theres a very vocal group on here that want First to win and (and secretly) fail as it furthers the renationalisation agenda, in the wider populace the vast majority prefers Virgin, accept it, its true no matter how much you moan about media coverage or unfair Virgin stunts. If you think the views of the people dont matter and they just need to be guided to the right (your) decision then ride on comrade Hitler.

what on earth are you talking about?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Not too shabby, we got 1262 posts in before Godwin was proved right...

Actually Godwin's law states only that the name or concept will be used, not that the comparison is justified or not. I think overriding the views of 90% of the population (proof statistic above) is a comparable analogy to a totalitarian system where the view of the leader is considered absoloute, I also used 'comrade Hitler' specifically to refer to totalitarian from both sides of the political spectrum rather than one system in particular.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
I think theres a very vocal group on here that want First to win and (and secretly) fail as it furthers the renationalisation agenda, in the wider populace the vast majority prefers Virgin, accept it, its true no matter how much you moan about media coverage or unfair Virgin stunts just as it was true that Siemens beat Bombardier both technically and on price. Clearly there are issues over the award with the Dft's own scoring saying the Virgin bid was superior but lost because First bid 15% higher not within a 10% margin that allowed them to award to the better bid not just the higher bid. If you think the views of the people dont matter and they just need to be guided to the right (your) decision then ride on comrade Hitler.

Any chance of proving any of that?

The vast majority of the populace prefer Virgin? 66,000 people signing an on-line petition, and there is no proof the majority even travel by train, is not the vast majority of the populace.

Virgin's bid was superior? No it wasn't. It outscored First's on deliverability - that is not everything bids are scored on.

As for the claim people want First to win because of a secret agenda - not even worth commenting on.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
I think theres a very vocal group on here that want First to win and (and secretly) fail as it furthers the renationalisation agenda, in the wider populace the vast majority prefers Virgin, accept it, its true no matter how much you moan about media coverage or unfair Virgin stunts just as it was true that Siemens beat Bombardier both technically and on price. Clearly there are issues over the award with the Dft's own scoring saying the Virgin bid was superior but lost because First bid 15% higher not within a 10% margin that allowed them to award to the better bid not just the higher bid. If you think the views of the people dont matter and they just need to be guided to the right (your) decision then ride on comrade Hitler.

Its not a case of their views not mattering. Its a case of their reasons being incorrect, and we know that for a fact. Most would not care who won if they knew the truth. But for every person who tries to point out the errors, you have another 2 people telling us we dont know what we are talking about, or never actually use the WCML.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
. I think overriding the views of 90% of the population (proof statistic above) ...

90% of how many? 1,000,000 or 1,000 or more likely 100. Any proof that a Virgin employee didn't notice the poll and get all his workmates to vote? No, thought not.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
To put in something (hopefully) more productive, something rather more profitable might come out of the debate. If Parliament does begin to look into how franchising works in general, then there is a chance the process might become more transparant and this sort of fuss might not happen again. As many people have pointed out, we don't know the full facts. Well, here is a chance to see some of them so that perhaps next time this happens there will not be such a reaction because the entire process will be more transparant.

Or am I just being idealistic?
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,786
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Reportedly in their most recent discussions they have come to the conclusion that they cannot, for the reasons that Nym has outlined. The five carriage units could be lengthened by the addition of two pantograph cars, but not one.

To elaborate more;

It started with all 22x units being able to be electrodieselified, then Bombardier looked into it more and this got dropped in the next government announcement down to being for 220 units only, this ties in quite nicely with the biggest transformer I've seen in a rail vehicle (floating round the 2200kVA mark).

To add some context, the draw requirement on some comparable units:

Class 444: 1.5MW for traction motors, so likely to be a 1800kVA transformer that can be slotted in, same for the 450s.

The total power generation capacity of the Class 220 units at the moment is 2240kW if I'm thinking right off the cuff, and I personally wouldn't like to see anyone cram a bigger transformer under a rail vehicle with traction motors on it too...

Even without additional traction motors, you would need a 2.3MVA transformer, pendos have roughly 2.6MVA per transformer coach, and they're mahoosive for the pendos and result in nothing else being able to be in them carriages, so if you work from a ceiling of 2.5MVA (Less space under the 22x series) then even without incorporating traction motors into the new carriages, there simply isn't enough power from one transformer for anything more than a four carriage formation, so a five car formation would need two transformers totalling 2800kW, and that would be with two unpowered coaches, that isn't really wanted for running on leccy, so you're running up to needing 3880kW, just for traction motors, add in other bits and you're needing a 4.5MVA transformer capacity, but then you come to the problem of running 7x23m units, you could never couple these in service and run all the way to Chester as they're simply too long, you'd need to have everything with it's first call as Crewe or make extensive use of SDO at intermediate stations, potentially running onto Mid Wales, but it is very restrictive having this length, adding more transformer or unpowered coaches won't work as when on diesel it won't be powerful enough. You can't install more generator coaches as the QSK19F is very out of production. All of this would also require a HV AC Busbar across the top as running with two pantos isn't advisable for them to be up, hence the HV Bar on Class 390s.

Enough here for ye to realise why we won't see EDMU versions of 221s in the near future...?

(I personally DO know how it could be done, but no ROSCO or TOC would want it so it's a no go)
 
Last edited:

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
Nice sentiment but 'the full facts' are 4 * 1500 page submissions. Even if these were condensed into something more manageable how many people do you think would

a) have enough interest to read it?
b) be able to fully understand and interpret all the financial aspects?
c) be knowledgeable enough about the railway to understand the rest of it?

Just to prove my point. There is a vast amount of information available to the public regarding the ICWC franchise process, yet there are still people, even enthusiasts, who have no idea that the same trains will still be used by First come December. If they had tried to find out, they could have done.

Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, sometimes you just have to trust people to do their jobs correctly. Have a review of the process if necessary but that's about it.
 
Last edited:

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
Interesting, if true. As I understand it the issue is that the CET tanks are positioned over the motors, and thus heat up. Sorting that is not a simple job.

Perhaps a good reason for First Group not to go with the operating name of 'First West Coast'. Too much scope for jokes about First WC....

In the past, elsewhere, we've had Worst Late Western and First Crapital Connect.

What punning can you do with the name 'Horizon Trains'?
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Nice sentiment but 'the full facts' are 4 * 1500 page submissions. Even if these were condensed into something more manageable how many people do you think would

a) have enough interest to read it?
b) be able to fully understand and interpret all the financial aspects?
c) be knowledgeable enough about the railway to understand the rest of it?

Just to prove my point. There is a vast amount of information available to the public regarding the ICWC franchise process, yet there are still people, even enthusiasts, who have no idea that the same trains will still be used by First come December. If they had tried to find out, they could have done.

Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, sometimes you just have to trust people to do their jobs correctly. Have a review of the process if necessary but that's about it.

The question isn't so much whether people are doing their jobs correctly (I assume that they are unless proven otherwise) it's whether or not the process is fundamentally flawed. After all, if someone can stand up and explain exactly why they made the decision to a bunch of MPs - who might have somewhat more patience than the average person, but are still essentially members of the public elected to office - then they can probably explain it to the general public. After all, the critical factor from a political point of view is what it looks like. It currently looks as though all one needs to do to win a rail franchise is pay more money than some other bloke. If an inquiry into the process is able to establish that this is not the case, then all well and good.

The questions that need to be asked are:
  • Why was the franchise awarded to First?
  • What were the influencing factors in this?
  • How much did premium payments come into it?
  • Are we placing too much emphasis on money?
  • Are we not placing enough emphasis on service quality (and as an aside, what is 'service quality')?
  • Do the two previous answers mean the process is flawed?
  • If it is, how can we change the process?
All need to be answered in less than 1,000 words each. Preferably in less than 10.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
After all, the critical factor from a political point of view is what it looks like. It currently looks as though all one needs to do to win a rail franchise is pay more money than some other bloke. If an inquiry into the process is able to establish that this is not the case, then all well and good.

No it isn't. The critical factor is is it the right thing to do.

It may look like it is only a question of money to some, and obviously money is an important factor, but as I've already stated - there is a vast amount of information out there. The DfT website has documentation describing exactly what bids are scored on and how the process works.
 

capital12

Member
Joined
20 Aug 2012
Messages
525
And I expect if you did a poll on the same people asking "have you ever travelled on a First train" the results would be....

Yes 10%
no 90%

or 90% - not if I can help it
10% - because I have to

Try looking at FGW Facebook to see why so many are against First taking over West Coast.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion and if they want to stand up for that they have every right as well - they don't need to be slated on a forum, particularly by a few who actually never have anything constructive to say anyway.

As has been said before - Virgin aren't perfect but in my opinion they are a damn sight better than First for customer service experience and that is why I make the choice to use them over driving when I have the chance. The decision isn't difficult when it comes to using First - I'll drive.

Expects to be shot down in flames for having an opinion and obviously stupid and brainwashed by the Virgin PR machine.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,911
Location
t'North
The questions that need to be asked are:
  • Why was the franchise awarded to First?
  • What were the influencing factors in this?
  • How much did premium payments come into it?
  • Are we placing too much emphasis on money?
  • Are we not placing enough emphasis on service quality (and as an aside, what is 'service quality')?
  • Do the two previous answers mean the process is flawed?
  • If it is, how can we change the process?
All need to be answered in less than 1,000 words each. Preferably in less than 10.
Very good questions. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of thing in a completely different industry - getting Invitations to Tender to outsource a business - towards the end it can often come down to gut feeling. Of the bids we received one was promising a far higher return than anyone else. We weren't sure exactly how they could do it but their sums added up and they were confident about their plans. We don't know what was said at DfT meetings, without the full facts it can only be speculation. That's what the public accounts committee and its like are there for. If this ridiculous petition gets to the magic 100K then all Parliament has to do is refer it to the PAC, which could well happen anyway.
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
Expects to be shot down in flames for having an opinion and obviously stupid and brainwashed by the Virgin PR machine.

No need to shoot you down, you've said all that needs to be said, about your opinion, in the second half of that sentence! ;):p:lol:
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
To be fair to the DfT, it has justified its decision to the people that matter. It has given feedback to all the bidders and they had 10 days to decide whether they had grounds to challenge the decision.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
No it isn't. The critical factor is is it the right thing to do.

It may look like it is only a question of money to some, and obviously money is an important factor, but as I've already stated - there is a vast amount of information out there. The DfT website has documentation describing exactly what bids are scored on and how the process works.

I did say 'from a political point of view'. This is essentially a political process and politics are all about image. The inquiry would be partly a face-saving exercise, because the DfT (and by default the Government) came out of this looking bad. It's actually a win-win for them, because if it becomes clear that the best bid won, they are vindicated, whereas if it becomes clear that the best bid did not win, then they can put the blame on the process (inherited from a previous government), fix it and come out looking as though they grasped the nettle and fixed the problem. The only problem is that it ties up parliamentary time, which could probably be spent better on something else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Very good questions. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of thing in a completely different industry - getting Invitations to Tender to outsource a business - towards the end it can often come down to gut feeling. Of the bids we received one was promising a far higher return than anyone else. We weren't sure exactly how they could do it but their sums added up and they were confident about their plans. We don't know what was said at DfT meetings, without the full facts it can only be speculation. That's what the public accounts committee and its like are there for. If this ridiculous petition gets to the magic 100K then all Parliament has to do is refer it to the PAC, which could well happen anyway.

Sounds like a sensible idea, which would help in not tying up too much time over the issue.

I'm now curious about what happened next as well.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
The questions that need to be asked are:
  • Why was the franchise awarded to First?
  • What were the influencing factors in this?
  • How much did premium payments come into it?
  • Are we placing too much emphasis on money?
  • Are we not placing enough emphasis on service quality (and as an aside, what is 'service quality')?
  • Do the two previous answers mean the process is flawed?
  • If it is, how can we change the process?

I answered this in another thread. Price is compared, if close then quality, and this is repeated up to 3 times until a clear winner emerges. The bar is not 10% as some erroneously say, but a fraction of the NPV of the income of the highest bid. This varies from franchise to franchise, but it was a relatively small % on ICWC. We haven't seen the full revenue figures, but it will be a fair bit less than 10%; more like 5 or 6% I'd estimate.

That means it didn't get past the first stage and therefore comparative quality never came into it. First's bid was considered deliverable, which was enough. Yes VT's bid scored higher, but even if First hadn't won it on the first round, VT's bid would have to have been 10% higher for them to have won it on the first quality round. Nothing suggests that they are that much ahead (I'm sure they would have said if it was).

What is quality? Well each plan is scored by experts using a RADAR format (part of EFQM). Essentially this means they look to see what boxes your plans tick, and then how believable they are. Generally you are most believable if your plans are repeating something you've already successfully done. Gut feeling shouldn't enter into it, but when people are involved the marking may not be 100% accurate...

Bidders normally get more detailed feedback later. By then it's too late to challenge even if they feel the reasons for a low score are erroneous.
 
Last edited:

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,668
or 90% - not if I can help it
10% - because I have to

Try looking at FGW Facebook to see why so many are against First taking over West Coast.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion and if they want to stand up for that they have every right as well - they don't need to be slated on a forum, particularly by a few who actually never have anything constructive to say anyway.

As has been said before - Virgin aren't perfect but in my opinion they are a damn sight better than First for customer service experience and that is why I make the choice to use them over driving when I have the chance. The decision isn't difficult when it comes to using First - I'll drive.

Expects to be shot down in flames for having an opinion and obviously stupid and brainwashed by the Virgin PR machine.

First great western is a very different franchise. Firstly it has been fairly neglected by government. The west coast has not they have thrown billions at it. (including several hundred million just for Virgins profits) admittedly that is changing with all the investment about to come their way.
The issue is people are comparing Virgin to First but not just long distance trains, for which First are very good at with FGW. They are also comparing Virgin to the First buses, the local branch line trains in devon and the interregional TPE services that are having overcrowding issues for reasons nothing to do with First (transpennine should not be operating manchester scotland/cumbria/blackpool services). The government ballsed all that up well and truly. So it is not a fair comparrison.

You won't be shot down for having an opinion, you will be shot down for having an opinion based on the lies that Virgin have told. Like members of public who believe the virgin pendilino trains will be scrapped and replaced with First commuter stock...

If you understand that a lot of what Virgin are saying is utter crap and you simply believe Virgin have are just better then thats fine.

-----------------------------------------------------

Did virgin over specify the 390s to make them over safe? people on facebook page seem to think so saying that it was all down to virgin that not many died at gayrigg.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Although the 6-car trains will most likely end up as "Baby Pendos", could the current Voyagers be lengthened and converted to diesel/electric traction?

I believe this has already been discussed and the short answer is no, I'm sure the guys in the know will be able to explain why shortly...

The XC 220s would be converted first if the project goes ahead, that means the additional carriage does not need to be capable of tilting.

As the West Coast 221s are going to be used increasingly doubled up on London routes it would create 12 car trains which would be too long for a lot of platforms.
 

Mr Spock

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2008
Messages
608
I am a regular traveller with Virgin trains and given the choice I would want them to continue as i think that they do a good job. I als0 spent my last years on the railways working for Virgin having switched from ICWC when the franchise was awarded.

I do not use facebook or twitter so have no idea what is being said on them but can imagine that a lot of it is dross.

As for the petition that is being pushed (they even have slips of paper in the Euston 1st lounge with details) all this has done is to make me lose some respect for Richard Branson and Virgin.

If Virgin feel that they have a case that the awarding of the franchise was flawed then they should take appropriate steps direct rather than what is going on now .

What will happen if this "campaign" is successful? presumably First will then go to court and the whole thing will just drag on to the benefit of no-one.
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
It's clear the majority of staff and members of the public prefer Virgin, but that's not what's interesting here.

What is at stake is the future of the railway. Virgin have put in a bid they see as sensible, they have done so before with the ECML. It is quite clear that the DfT are going for the maximum return as they did with the National Express and GNER. They may harp on about deliverability, but the fact of the matter is they have got it badly wrong before by selecting 'Toppy' bids. Many TOC managers in the past have been concerned that the franchise process - especially for the more lucrative franchises - is being based far too much on returns. While fine and dandy the problem with this method is whatever anyone likes to pretend it's based on a fair degree of guesswork. More often that not the passenger sees the crumbling edge of quality (think National Express on the ECML) or fare hikes or staff cuts.

Let's do some numbers. First are going for an average of 10.4% growth.

Simplistically, this means in 7 years they need to DOUBLE the passenger numbers on the West coast main line or hike fares. This is considering:

- Virgin did that comparing it to BR days but only after very substantial investment in the WCML, including much higher train frequencies and much shorter journey times.
- We are in a recession, and depending on the Euro crisis and other factors, it could get a lot worse
- The airline industry is lobbying for a reduction in APD, which if they succeed may affect traffic on the northern half of the line
- Some of the new flows they are taking on were basket cases in BR days: Shrewsbury and Blackpool.
- Peak time traffic is already fairly close to capacity, much new growth will need to be off peak.
- First group are heavily in debt, their share price has fallen 26% percent in the last few days.
- Virgin have a much stronger brand than First.

Virgin's bid was optimistic, the First bid is extremely risky.

If this fails again, we will see an increase in railway costs, as we have done with all the other franchise failures. They private sector will simply build more risk in. On the whole they are being attracted less and less to rail. There is no guarantee, given the costs, the government will take the strain especially given the strain the rest of the public finances are in.

They only option then is to massively hike fares or start thinking the unthinkable, either way the whole system could find itself unravelling and like Hatfield the result won't be very pretty with the usual vultures circling.

I wish First Group the very best of luck, but part of me does agree with Virgin that the process is flawed and could leave the sector in big problems in a few years.
 
Last edited:

Seacook

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
456
Location
West Bromwich
Perhaps a good reason for First Group not to go with the operating name of 'First West Coast'. Too much scope for jokes about First WC....

In the past, elsewhere, we've had Worst Late Western and First Crapital Connect.

What punning can you do with the name 'Horizon Trains'?


Horrors on Trains?

I really can't get interested in which company runs the franchise. If Virgin had stayed in place, no problem; First Group take over instead, no problem. I am unlikely have an opinion on the subject until the end of next year after seeing what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top