MK Tom
Established Member
Whilst MK having a direct service to Scotland is something I'll always support, what is achieved by creating a direct service that's 20 minutes slower than changing at Crewe is?
-
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
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
(i) The ability to say in publicity that you've introduced a new direct service
(ii) Some people (eg. people with lots of luggage) are sufficiently averse to changing that they would find even a slower direct service useful.
(Of course, this is all speculation. It might not be what Virgin are planning, though given there's no increase in total number of trains, I can't offhand see how else they can fulfill the claims they've made).
(ii) Some people (eg. people with lots of luggage) are sufficiently averse to changing that they would find even a slower direct service useful.
(Of course, this is all speculation. It might not be what Virgin are planning, though given there's no increase in total number of trains, I can't offhand see how else they can fulfill the claims they've made).
Surely you're making quite an assumption that there is some corruption involved here, and you'll (like Virgin) need to provide evidence - not just express such 'opinions' based on your political views.
Anyway, Richard has admitted he was having secret talks with the Tories.. so you could jump to the conclusion that he was trying to bribe the Government in advance to make sure he won - and clearly didn't bribe enough.. But there's no evidence of that having happened either.
Can't anyone simply believe that the process was done totally above board and Virgin merely lost, as did the other bidders based on the criteria set out from day one - and to which Virgin created its bid.
I'm as cynical of things as the next guy, but it really doesn't sound like anything sinister happened here. If Virgin had won, there wouldn't have been any fuss at all. Virgin has lost bids before, as have others. There's no reason to say they couldn't bid again and get back into rail (as I am sure they will) and the customer really won't see much difference come December - same trains, same staff and almost the same timetable.
Which might mean 3 a day. Unless we could see full TTs from both bidders it's not clear what the differences are - all we know is that First bid more trains than Virgin.
On a different aspect I find it hard to see what the VT business case is for replacing Voyagers with Pendos and then having to buy new Diesel units to haul them on the non-electrified routes. It adds quite a lot of cost and no capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The TT will be a VT TT. First won't have had any input to it.
Last edited:
All current RS is protected by s.54, and in any case, given their growth projections, taking out RS will be the last thing on their minds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As there is no contractual relationship between VT/Branson and First this is not possible.
Last edited:
The worst factor in this whole sorry saga is that the people who could lose the most are us, as tax payers and passengers. If it does go to a full hearing and drags on then the promised improvements won't happen until later than currently planned and if the economy worsens First will demand a renegotiation of their premium payments. Branson and Virgin will more than likely walk away scot-free.
I expect that angle of thinking is not lost on the Government. I'm wondering if there's been any Governmental pressure behind the scenes to ensure that any threat of a judicial review is promptly quashed at the first hearing.
If (when) he loses, he'll play the victim and we'll see even more hatred towards the Government and railway.
I'm sure he'll bid for the ECML, whatever Virgin might have said to the contrary, and I'm sure that he'll continue to play games and try and get the Government to rig it for him to win, so they can get him back on side (I am sure he believes all of his own hype).
Therefore, given all the conspiracy theories about First and how it won, I'd be inclined to believe that if Virgin wins another franchise then we should be wondering the same thing. Was it just to appease him and make up?
But, that's for later; for now, let's just see how things pan out.
I'm sure he'll bid for the ECML, whatever Virgin might have said to the contrary, and I'm sure that he'll continue to play games and try and get the Government to rig it for him to win, so they can get him back on side (I am sure he believes all of his own hype).
Therefore, given all the conspiracy theories about First and how it won, I'd be inclined to believe that if Virgin wins another franchise then we should be wondering the same thing. Was it just to appease him and make up?
But, that's for later; for now, let's just see how things pan out.
David10
Member
I would think it unlikely, the judicial system does not take kindly to being pressured by government departments.
Hmmmm, call me a cynic, but you just know it goes on......
eastdyke
Established Member
It will be the job of the QC acting for DfT to do this, firstly in papers to the court and then quite possibly in court!
The day that the Judiciary becomes part of Government we are all, err well, stuffed.
Cliveblackpool
Member
Imo the terminology is misleading!
I would describe the proposed new service/s as a 'through train/ service'
A direct service should take a direct route!
calc7
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 2,097
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,303
'Flashing greens' was a trial to confirm the theory, but it wasn't adopted, so might as well be ignored for modern purposes. The upper speed limit for lineside signalling stayed at 125 mph. (I think it's reasonable to say the trial failed, because soon afterwards 140 mph running appears to have been cancelled.)
This Virgin proposal sounds very similar to their earlier suggestion of 135 mph running in the Trent Valley, which appears to have been based on the flimsy premise that if cab signalling was only required for 140 mph upwards, anything less should be OK. Most discussions at the time suggested this argument didn't hold up, and 125 mph remains the upper limit for lineside signals.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with some facts? Preferably ones relating to the WCML and not a suburban or bus operation.
Shame we couldn't have had Branson and O'Toole side-by-side. That would have been really entertaining to watch!
My understanding is that the trial failed because drivers were unable to sight the flashing aspect in anything less than perfect conditions. In less than perfect conditions the drivers could find themselves unable to determine if they'd seen a steady green or a flashing green.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
I think First have done a reasonable job with the Scotrail franchise.
Some may be surprised to hear that it is actually possible to get free refreshments off an Aberdeen based company - I wouldn't have been surprised if they had said "Ye'll have had your tea" instead to First Class passengers.
Some may be surprised to hear that it is actually possible to get free refreshments off an Aberdeen based company - I wouldn't have been surprised if they had said "Ye'll have had your tea" instead to First Class passengers.
I would expect O'Toole and Barker to turn up 10 minutes late, and then deny there was anything wrong with that.
Whereas Branson probably won't turn up at all, and then say it was because Cameron hadn't apologised to him yet...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I doubt it. AFAICS everything that is happening is allowed for in the process. Well except Branson's outbursts ahead of the result. There he broke the confidentiality clause, and VT could have been thrown out. I guess they didn't fancy the political backlash on that though - something Branson must have been counting on.
It's perfectly OK for VT to ask for a judicial review; it's all the other stuff that stinks. Cynical manipulation of a gullible public.
Last edited:
eastdyke
Established Member
I am slightly puzzled and hope that someone can please point this up for me.
What is the Transport Select Committee seeking to establish?
Why are the Transport Secretary & DfT not also called to give evidence ? (or perhaps they are?).
Thanks.
PS The witnesses had better allow extra time to travel, there is a little parade of athletes in Central London on Monday afternoon.
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the impact of the latest government reshuffle - the two ministers most involved with the WC franchise bid have both been moved, with novices in their place.
The judicial review and TSC hearings must be significantly impacted.
And just to say I find most of the recent posts to be just naff.
There are serious issues for the railway here, but it seems it's just knockabout slapstick for many.
At Rugby today (paying passengers joining VT to Euston):
"Did you know Virgin has lost? Apparently First has these new faster trains they are putting on..."
Somebody else put them straight, but it's typical of the level of debate.
If you just read the current Rail editorial (and Wolmar), you get a more balanced picture than on here.
Without knowing the whole content of the bids, we can hardly judge the outcome.
The judicial review and TSC hearings must be significantly impacted.
And just to say I find most of the recent posts to be just naff.
There are serious issues for the railway here, but it seems it's just knockabout slapstick for many.
At Rugby today (paying passengers joining VT to Euston):
"Did you know Virgin has lost? Apparently First has these new faster trains they are putting on..."
Somebody else put them straight, but it's typical of the level of debate.
If you just read the current Rail editorial (and Wolmar), you get a more balanced picture than on here.
Without knowing the whole content of the bids, we can hardly judge the outcome.
As you have posted the same comment on 2 threads I'll respond to it on 2 threads. Franchising isn't a political or personal matter. Villiers and Greening will have done what their department advised them to do, i.e. accept the best bid. A different Secretary of State or even a different government would have done exactly the same thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just read it and he says Virgin did one good thing which was VHF - and they didn't do that. And he likes the on-board staff. His views in no way correspond with the views you have expressed on this thread.
Last edited:
And arguably they failed to fully capitalise on it too. I'm told that PDFH would have expected stronger growth. Another bit of VT sandbagging possibly?
- Status