Virgin Trains complaint against Chiltern adverts not upheld

[northwichcat]

Richard Branson doesn't own Virgin Media.

Presumably he's quite happy to license the name to them though.

When Virgin Group sold Virgin Radio they licenced the 'Virgin Radio' name to the new parent company but a term of the licence said the parent company weren't allowed to compete with any Virgin Group business. When the radio station got sold to The Times Group it was deemed to be under the control of a business who competed with a Virgin Group business so the licence was revoked and the radio station had to be rebranded.

 

[feline1]

Virgin have made a very big deal about their Pendilinos with advertising campaigns proudly showing how fast they are etc which is true. But unsurprisingly none of the adverts claim that you will travel in spacious comfortable train, mainly because you wont..

Well, the fact is, compared to commuting on the Brighton mainline, when I'm in a Pendilino I feel like I'm in heaven!

 

[transmanche]

When Virgin Group sold Virgin Radio they licenced the 'Virgin Radio' name to the new parent company but a term of the licence said the parent company weren't allowed to compete with any Virgin Group business. When the radio station got sold to The Times Group it was deemed to be under the control of a business who competed with a Virgin Group business so the licence was revoked and the radio station had to be rebranded.

Actually was because the new owners (part of the Times of India Group) chose not to license the Virgin brand - presumably because they didn't want to pay the licensing fees.

Selling a business and subsequently licensing the brand to the new owners is something that Virgin has done a lot. Company policy seems to be: start a business, grow the business, sell the business and license the brand.

 

[Smethwickian]

I suppose its the choice between a faster journey time and a cheaper ticket with a more spacious train.

Precisely. Even my aged and easily put-off parents have, over the last couple of years, got to know the choice on this corridor which, very generally speaking boils down from their point of view as between: fast expensive Virgin; slowest but cheapest LM; and Chiltern somewhere in the middle.

Yes, I know, I know, in an ideal integrated world, public transport as a whole should be simpler and compete as a whole against the car, not with each other. But this is what we've got at the moment so pay your money and take your choice.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, I know, I know, in an ideal integrated world, public transport as a whole should be simpler and compete as a whole against the car, not with each other. But this is what we've got at the moment so pay your money and take your choice.

Exactly. About the only positive thing I have to say about competition on the rails is that it provides people with a choice.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It's somewhat analogous to the fact that Virgin Trains is actually 49% owned by Stagecoach.

Stagecoach own 49% of Virgin Rail Group. Virgin Trains is a trading name for West Coast Trains Limited, which is part of Virgin Rail Group.

 

[NSEFAN]

Stagecoach own 49% of Virgin Rail Group. Virgin Trains is a trading name for West Coast Trains Limited, which is part of Virgin Rail Group.

I stand corrected. Still, I wonder how many passengers who use the WCML know that?

 

[bramling]

Precisely. Even my aged and easily put-off parents have, over the last couple of years, got to know the choice on this corridor which, very generally speaking boils down from their point of view as between: fast expensive Virgin; slowest but cheapest LM; and Chiltern somewhere in the middle.

Yes, I know, I know, in an ideal integrated world, public transport as a whole should be simpler and compete as a whole against the car, not with each other. But this is what we've got at the moment so pay your money and take your choice.

I must admit I don't really find it a realistic choice. I used to use Chiltern for novelty value, but after some pretty awful experiences with them (packed trains and slow journeys) I would never consider anything other than Virgin. With Chiltern the trains always seem to be packed around the Leamington Spa to Birmingham section, and again around London, and at the times I travel there never seems to be a fast service. By contrast I've always found Virgin journeys to be fast and pleasant, subject to choosing a decent seat on the train which given the trains always seem to be half empty has never yet been a problem.

I find London Midland just too slow and tedious to seriously consider.

 

[transmanche]

I must admit I don't really find it a realistic choice. I used to use Chiltern for novelty value, but after some pretty awful experiences with them (packed trains and slow journeys) I would never consider anything other than Virgin. With Chiltern the trains always seem to be packed around the Leamington Spa to Birmingham section, and again around London, and at the times I travel there never seems to be a fast service. By contrast I've always found Virgin journeys to be fast and pleasant, subject to choosing a decent seat on the train which given the trains always seem to be half empty has never yet been a problem.

London to Birmingham isn't a journey I really have to do. But I have made two journeys on Chiltern from Marylebone to Moor Street. One was on a 'Silver set. I found the ride quite rough and noisy (noisier than a 185) - perhaps one of the wheels had a flat? The other was on a 168, which had quite a shabby interior. On both journeys, there were plenty of free table seats to choose from.

Whilst the fare was good (and I think I got excellent value for money and would use them again ion the future), I didn't think that Chiltern lived up to the hype that I read about them.

 

[O L Leigh]

Too much blether.

The chances of getting a table seat are down to two factors only. 1) The proportion of table seats against non-table seats, and 2) passenger loadings.

There is an incredibly good chance of getting a table seat on Chiltern Mainline between London and Brum. On the silver sets almost every seat is a table seat. In fact, you're struggling to find somewhere on a silver set if you don't want to sit at a table. If you take the total rolling stock allocation across the Chiltern Mainline service in any given day, even allowing for the combination of loco-hauled silver sets and Cl168 DMUs, there is a very high proportion of table seats against non-table seats. However, for Virgin the number of table seats against non-table seats is fixed because the fleet is all Cl390s.

Having used Chiltern regularly between Moor Street and Marylebone I would have to conclude that the chance of finding a table seat before departure is actually very high indeed, even on a Cl168. For whatever reason, the "great unwashed" don't seem to have the imagination to realise that there is an alternative to Virgin's offering from New Street. As a consequence, Chiltern services often leave Moor Street very lightly loaded indeed (particularly off peak).

Good for the ASA. I wonder who brought the complaint in the first place. Do I need to go on...?

O L Leigh

 

[tractakid]

In regards to the recent mention of choice on the London to Birmingham route- I will do my best to explain what the choice is for people travelling to or from Milton Keynes- to London and to Birmingham. I think that the variety of choices and tickets can benefit passengers from here- as long as they can get their head around what is on offer.

From Milton Keynes, Virgin prices actually compare favourably to London Midland. (All prices quoted are with Y-P discount, as that is what I am familiar with).

Getting to London- 3 TOCs to choose from. London Midland and Virgin to Euston, Southern to the West London Line.

Advantages for London Midland

-Offer advance fares from £3.30.
-Have the first departures there and the last departures back. (0330 is also considered valid on off peak, and they have the earliest off peak arrival at Euston after 1000)
-Have an hourly 110mph service that is only slightly slower than VT
-Have the cheapest day travelcard option- £12.85 for an Off Peak Z1-6 travelcard. The cost of this ticket actually was reduced in the last fare 'increase', I don't doubt this is a move to get more people onto LM! Still, for me it means cheaper London trips.
-Don't have any set down/pick up only services at Milton Keynes

Disadvantages of London Midland
-Slower journey times, most services stop at intermediate stations
-Trains may not be considered as comfortable (350/2s especially)
-Poor first class offering
-Fast services are usually rammed
-More expensive in peak times, no London Midland Only anytime tickets available

Advantages of Virgin Trains
-Fastest, non stop service, 3 times an hour
-More capacity on most trains
-Better first class service
-Only 35p more expensive on a day travelcard ticket
-Same price as London Midland Only for off peak singles/returns
-Offer cheaper Virgin Trains Only anytime tickets for travel in peak times

Disadvantages of Virgin Trains
-All 3 London Services depart within 16 minutes of the hour
-Have a great chunk of the day when no services serve between Milton Keynes and London (although may stop for travel to/from the north), making the usefulness of the Virgin Trains Only anytime fare limited
-No Advance fare offering
-Later first train to London and earlier last train from London
-Late night services timetabled to take just as long as London Midland- 2230/2330 departures take an hour to get to MK (though in practice often arrive at MK very early)

Advantages of Southern
-First off peak departure after 0900 from Milton Keynes
-Offers a different range of destinations, which may be more convenient

Disadvantages of Southern
-Least frequent service at 1tph
-Slow service
-Earliest last journey back- ridiculously early on Saturdays. (From Olympia- Weekdays 2050 Saturdays 1750), which has always been too early for my needs.
-Southern Only Travelcard is no cheaper than Virgin, and more expensive than London Midland.
-During disruption, service is often pulled completely.

For Birmingham, the situation is different. Virgin again offer the quicker service, this time, always much quicker. This time though, Virgin offer advance fares which undercut the London Midland advance fares- VT from £2.30 and LM from £3.30. Virgin also offer the odd SVH fare which undercuts even the Super Off Peak London Midland Only single fare. Walk up though, London Midland are cheaper, as Virgin don't (Can't?) offer Virgin Trains Only fares. However, for railcard users, Virgin are definitely cheaper for walk up fares in peak times, as they will accept off peak railcard discounted tickets thanks to their easement. Unfortunately this doesn't apply for journeys between MK and Euston.
In terms of service provision, London Midland offer 2tph, but one is overtaken, and the other doesn't leave much after the VT service, and doesn't get in much before the next one! LM however do offer the earliest service there and the latest service back. (Not true if doing the opposite journey- first train from BHM is VT as is the last service back!)


So, living where I do, it is a myth that Virgin are always more expensive. In fact, they are often cheaper or the same price as the competition.

In the future, MK will probably have a fourth option to get to London- a Chiltern service from MK to Marylebone, we shall see what the fares comparison looks like then!

 

[DownSouth]

Exactly. About the only positive thing I have to say about competition on the rails is that it provides people with a choice.

I would suggest that what is even more important is that it offers the perception of a choice.

Taking the three operators doing London-Birmingham, an "advertising war" would have the potential to change people from thinking they have a choice between car, coach or train to perceiving they have a choice between car, coach, Chiltern, Virgin or London Midland. That choice suddenly changes from rail being one of three competing options to three of the five options, and if they kept the ad war civil and well-humoured all three rail operators would win out of it.

It's exactly the opposite of the smartphone market, where Apple and Samsung have done an excellent job of making people perceive that there are only two choices (iPhone or Galaxy) and that they should pick one - when in reality there are also numerous other options such as Blackberry, HTC, Nokia etc.

 

[Geezertronic]

However, for Virgin the number of table seats against non-table seats is fixed because the fleet is all Cl390s.

Don't forget the 221s when they run on EUS-BHM etc...

 

[Deerfold]

Good for the ASA. I wonder who brought the complaint in the first place.

As per the thread title, Virgin (Trains) did.

 

[junglejames]

It pretty much NEVER benefits passengers, as all the competing operators still have to make a profit off them.
Plus, usually just means that, despite the illusion of "choice", passengers have less trains they can get, as their tickets aren't valid on other TOCs trains. (i.e. the "choice" is usually between slight discounts and much less frequency & flexibility. Which is not quite as much fun as choosing your favourite milkshake...)

Competition does benefit passengers. London to Brum, you now have the choice of 3 very different types of services. If there was no competition, then what? Bendy Pendies only? That choice is a benefit. Certainly if like me you cant stand the bendy trains. Massive benefit.

Also, competition means you have a very varied choice, and you can pick and choose as you wish. OK it just adds to confusion in some cases, but it also adds to choice. Its not an illusion, it is real. You can pay for an Any Permitted, and take your pick of operators/ times/ trains/ routes/ scenary etc, or you can pay for an operator specific ticket, and you actually end up with pretty much the same number of trains to choose from (not less). Well assuming it isnt an advance ticket, but they have always been the same.
Its wrong to say you get less choice of trains. If there was no competition then what? A choice of 3 trains per hour with Virgin. Choosing an operator specific ticket (say Chiltern, Via High Wycombe), and you have a choice of 2 trains per hour. OK so 1 train less, but hardly a major problem. The quote that competition gives you less trains to choose from is pretty much rubbish, and thats without taking into account 'Any Permitted' tickets, which means you have a much wider choice of trains, all thanks to competition on this corridor.

 

[feline1]

Competition does benefit passengers. .

So capitalists tell us. Yet someone all the private operators make increasing profits from the same customer base.
Unless there's some kind of Bagpuss breadcrumbs & butterbeans magic going on, it's fairly obvious that there's just a greater number of pockets to be lined.

"Choice" only properly exists if the passenger is totally free to "choose" when they make their journey. But they are not. As you know, most journeys are made by commuters, who have to go to work when they employers tell them, not when they "choose". They thus have to endure peak fares.

Also if passengers need full and accurate information to be able to "choose" the best/cheapest fares and services. Which they don't (as the labyrinthine ticketing guides on this forum attest).

But I expect you already know this.

 

[Greenback]

So capitalists tell us. Yet someone all the private operators make increasing profits from the same customer base.
Unless there's some kind of Bagpuss breadcrumbs & butterbeans magic going on, it's fairly obvious that there's just a greater number of pockets to be lined.

"Choice" only properly exists if the passenger is totally free to "choose" when they make their journey. But they are not. As you know, most journeys are made by commuters, who have to go to work when they employers tell them, not when they "choose". They thus have to endure peak fares.

Also if passengers need full and accurate information to be able to "choose" the best/cheapest fares and services. Which they don't (as the labyrinthine ticketing guides on this forum attest).

But I expect you already know this.

This has been discussed on here many times, yes. So we don't want to take this thread off topic!

 

[Mojo]

I really don't think that competition has done Birmingham badly at all.

Take a look at the following, all of which are roughly the same distance from London on four major main lines travelling on InterCity operators. I've quoted the cheapest Any Permitted Off-peak (not Day) return tickets which are Super Off-peak Returns.

Birmingham to London ~112 miles £32
Bristol to London ~111 miles £55
Leicester to London ~98 miles £58
Grantham to London ~105 miles £52

The difference is Birmingham to London has some competition, whereas the other routes don't really have any meaningful competition to talk of. So in addition to providing customers with the choice, the cost of the "premium" option from Birmingham to London is also reduced in comparison.

 

[Deerfold]

Birmingham to London ~112 miles £32[/B]
Bristol to London ~111 miles £55
Leicester to London ~98 miles £58
Grantham to London ~105 miles £52

The difference is Birmingham to London has some competition, whereas the other routes don't really have any meaningful competition to talk of.

Or it could be that Birmingham is a less popular place to travel to

 

[infobleep]

With Birmingham tickets being cheaper that means less money to invest in the railways. Perhaps they need to reduce competition, like they will be doing on the Brighton mainline, when FCC and Southern franchises become one.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[ECML180]

Tickets are unlikely to become cheaper if that means operators face a reduction in revenue, most likely passengers will be paying less but more passengers overall would mean more money to invest in the railways. Besides investment seems to come from central government on whim, not relating to anything in particular!

 

[The Planner]

Less money for who to invest? The TOCs as it makes no difference to NR.

 

[anme]

I really don't think that competition has done Birmingham badly at all.

Take a look at the following, all of which are roughly the same distance from London on four major main lines travelling on InterCity operators. I've quoted the cheapest Any Permitted Off-peak (not Day) return tickets which are Super Off-peak Returns.

Birmingham to London ~112 miles £32
Bristol to London ~111 miles £55
Leicester to London ~98 miles £58
Grantham to London ~105 miles £52

The difference is Birmingham to London has some competition, whereas the other routes don't really have any meaningful competition to talk of. So in addition to providing customers with the choice, the cost of the "premium" option from Birmingham to London is also reduced in comparison.

Interesting numbers, but I'd be more interested to see the *average* fare paid by passengers between London and Birmingham.

 

[SS4]

I really don't think that competition has done Birmingham badly at all.

Take a look at the following, all of which are roughly the same distance from London on four major main lines travelling on InterCity operators. I've quoted the cheapest Any Permitted Off-peak (not Day) return tickets which are Super Off-peak Returns.

Birmingham to London ~112 miles £32
Bristol to London ~111 miles £55
Leicester to London ~98 miles £58
Grantham to London ~105 miles £52

The difference is Birmingham to London has some competition, whereas the other routes don't really have any meaningful competition to talk of. So in addition to providing customers with the choice, the cost of the "premium" option from Birmingham to London is also reduced in comparison.

Yes, except the comparable Birmingham ticket is the Off Peak Return at £50.50. The restriction code on the off peak return is similar to those other off peak returns you mentioned. I'd hazard a guess that the Super Off Peak is too impractical for a lot of people.

With Birmingham tickets being cheaper that means less money to invest in the railways.

The corollary being if fares were higher the money would be invested in the railway rather than be TOC profit or sucked in the DfT? I can't buy that

 

[VauxhallandI]

When examining the figures (and I realise it works for both options), it assumes that people travel alone.

If there are two of you then one seat at a table is no good.

 

[capital12]

Virgin have made a very big deal about their Pendilinos with advertising campaigns proudly showing how fast they are etc which is true. But unsurprisingly none of the adverts claim that you will travel in spacious comfortable train, mainly because you wont. Chiltern have clearly got one up on Virgin on this by being cheaper and having a far better ambiance on board both their 168's and silver sets. I suppose its the choice between a faster journey time and a cheaper ticket with a more spacious train.

As always a matter of personal taste - personally I quite like the Pendolinos and the faster journey time. Maybe if all the Chiltern Mainline services used silver sets (proper ones - not an awful Turbostar with a bit of silver paint splashed on the front!)it would be an option to consider . However at the moment I personally find Chilterns adverts a bit misleading as I may have to endure a DMU that hardly feels spacious!

 

[bILLOO]

Personally, I prefer a 350/1 set over a Pendo or any Chiltern stock, despite slower journey times. An LM express from Euston to Birmingham with the /1 or /3 would be quite popular, probably.