Virgin Trains: Untouchable?

[Wath Yard]

Does it really matter who takes the credit? Really?

I would much rather TOCs benefit from the "limelight" of service upgrades as they're the public face of the railway. Regardless of whether you think it's accurate or not, Virgin may well be seen as the saviours of the West Coast Main Line by many of the public. And that's why many people choose to use Virgin, and drop the car at home, and take the train.

Chiltern should be blowing their horn a lot more than they are doing, in my view. I don't give a monkeys who actually pays for the railway as long as more people use them - which is a Good Thing.

Except it isn't a good thing as last summer showed. I've seen no evidence to prove that the Virgin brand attracts passengers to the railway. If the DfT hadn't made such a mess of things and FirstGroup had taken over ICWC then the propaganda, lies and hysteria generated by Virgin's antics would have been a bad thing and as many people just believed everything Virgin told them could well have driven some passengers off the railway.

 

[Dave1987]

I think this should not be a case of "Virgin Trains is doing the wrong thing", instead "Why is everyone else not doing what Virgin is doing?"

I mean, I think what is being missed in this thread is how can you make the general public feel like you're doing a good job, which should at least in part be a portion of your remit as a TOC. If everyone thinks you're terrible, your ridership goes down (not as much as it would in a solid competitive environment, rather than the local-monopoly system employed, but I digress) and less investment becomes available for your lines. London Overground has shown that if you make your lines shiny, more people will use them - look at GOBLIN - yes I know frequencies have increased, but the ridership has increased considerably more, resulting in overcrowding and a request to tender for new trains/train extenstions to the already brand new Class 172 s.

The problem is that the companies who run most of the rail franchises aren't particularly clued in to marketing. Virgin were pretty much the only ones who had that kind of extensive marketing experience - useful when you want to run things such as airlines and generic consumer products with established alternatives (Cola from Coke, Music from HMV, Virgin Airlines competing with flag-carrier BA etc.)

Most of the past experience of the TOC is in buses (First, Arriva etc.), coaches (NatEx) or British Rail (Prism, Great Western Holdings) . The first two are both things that don't need to be marketed, they just rely on low cost or complete monopoly for their business. British Rail, while a railway company, was also technically a public service and didn't really need to market itself. Virgin were in a great place, they had a phenomenally established brand throughout the UK, because they'd spent years doing it. They just needed to apply the same level of brand diligence to their train services and things like punctuality stop being as much of an issue. If First had the same level of awareness when it came to brand image, the argument over the tendering process may never even have happened as the public would have been overjoyed to see the "fantastic" GW service applied to the WCML, rather than be replaced by a company who's well known for treating one DMU as another (142 on Cardiff to Bristol), extensive late running (known for, doesn't have to be true) and some random bus services (buses are always terrible anyway in terms of brand image, you take them because they're cheap and go where you want them to).

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think a lot of it relies on where NR are planning on investing/upgrading. The WCML is seen as the backbone of the UK linking the north to London and the south in general so was always a prime candidate for a massive investment program. I notice that Passenger Focus has mounted a campaign against any further fare increases. This is certainly not the way to get investment in the railways considering the massive cost of upgrade programmes, just look at IEP and Crossrail. There will in future be less and less money around for upgrades on a scale like the WCML, and wih real emphasis being put on getting the wires up to combat the cost implications of rises in diesel prices I think apart from HS2 (which defiantely needs to be built) I think there won't be many more big projects.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've seen no evidence to prove that the Virgin brand attracts passengers to the railway.

I see it daily, first-hand. I can give you my personal assurance that a fair proportion of customers regularly cite the brand as a reason to choose Virgin.

If the DfT hadn't made such a mess of things and FirstGroup had taken over ICWC then the propaganda, lies and hysteria generated by Virgin's antics would have been a bad thing and as many people just believed everything Virgin told them could well have driven some passengers off the railway.

I thoroughly agree, and I have highlighted in red the most important word in your sentence.

The fact is, the DfT did make a mess, and Virgin were entirely correct to challenge the process, which as has been proven was thoroughly flawed. The award of a franchise to any TOC, whoever won - on such flawed mathematics would have ultimately resulted in the customer and taxpayer losing out.

The franchise debacle was distasteful - but heaven forbid that a company actually mobilises its resources to defend itself against a competitor in a legal manner. Blimey, aggressive competition! Isn't that what was promised to us when the railways were privatised?

Ultimately I have only once concern - are more people using the train over cars and other private transport? Yes, yes they are. End of argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Glbotu - much of your post I agree with, but:

British Rail, while a railway company, was also technically a public service and didn't really need to market itself.

No - it really did need to market itself. A lot of BR's advertising was superb, particularly after the HST was introduced (let's conveniently forget who the poster boy was, though!). The HST was one of the first trains really designed for the market, taking into account their needs, rather than a train being designed and "here you go, public".

If First had the same level of awareness when it came to brand image, the argument over the tendering process may never even have happened as the public would have been overjoyed to see the "fantastic" GW service applied to the WCML, rather than be replaced by a company who's well known for treating one DMU as another (142 on Cardiff to Bristol), extensive late running (known for, doesn't have to be true) and some random bus services (buses are always terrible anyway in terms of brand image, you take them because they're cheap and go where you want them to).

That's a little unfair on FirstGroup.

Sun Tzu was a wise bloke (read the Art of War, it's great), and he always suggested that you do not try and beat your enemy by attacking their strengths. I cannot think of many companies that could take Virgin on at a head-to-head marketing or PR game and win. That would simply have been a foolish tactic for First to adopt. They correctly chose the tactic of using ORR statistics and passenger feedback to make Virgin appear weak.

First are a bus company and they will never appear glamorous. Their strengths are shrewd cost management and extensive operational/logistics experience in a transport setting.



Just my opinions, of course.

 

[sheff1]

Ultimately I have only once concern - are more people using the train over cars and other private transport? Yes, yes they are. End of argument.

All figures I have seen suggest that a far greater number of people travel by car than travel by train. So no, they are not. End of argument ??

 

[Zoe]

British Rail (Prism, Great Western Holdings)

Prism was founded by investors from the bus industry. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...rges-as-front-runner-to-get-scotrail-1.424035

Prism was founded just two years ago by a group of managers who come from the bus industry. It has already picked up several franchises, London, Tilbury and Southend - nicknamed the misery line by users - Cardiff Railway, South Wales and West and recently West Anglia Great Northern.

 

[AlterEgo]

All figures I have seen suggest that far more people travel by car than travel by train. So no, they are not. End of argument ??

Sorry, that was poorly worded!

I was describing modal shift. I should have said: "A larger proportion of people are choosing to leave their cars at home and take the train".

Of course there are far more car journeys than rail journeys every year.

 

[sheff1]

Ah .. now I see where you are coming from.

 

[Pumbaa]

Does it really matter who takes the credit? Really?

I would much rather TOCs benefit from the "limelight" of service upgrades as they're the public face of the railway. Regardless of whether you think it's accurate or not, Virgin may well be seen as the saviours of the West Coast Main Line by many of the public. And that's why many people choose to use Virgin, and drop the car at home, and take the train.

Chiltern should be blowing their horn a lot more than they are doing, in my view. I don't give a monkeys who actually pays for the railway as long as more people use them - which is a Good Thing.

That's a really interesting viewpoint, and makes a lot of sense, tbh. The travelling public largely don't understand or care about Network Rail and infrastructure improvements for their own sake. But they can relate to "Virgin Trains now offering faster and more frequent trains"

I agree with both of you to an extent. I am of the opinion, though, that actions by Virgin (and I use Virgin as they tend to be the most aggressive at advertising and arguably have the most powerful brand) end up causing damage to the rail industry as a whole.

There is a PF review (mid 08 I think) were it acknowledges that NXEC's satisfaction rates were ~10% lower than they should have been. They surveyed people who had prior experience of GNER and those who didn't, and found a continual bias. It's understandable, but I worry that come a new franchisee on the WCML, even if they are doing as good a job/better job than the current franchisee, they will fail their own satisfaction benchmarks. It could also damage the new franchisee's reputation, a la NX. On a greater magnitude, fail own benchmarks and franchise terms > remedial notice > continue to falter to wisdom of the crowds > bye bye franchise. Very extreme I admit, but I imagine XC are continually below what they should be too (I have no evidence for this, just a hunch).

I think there is a fine line between 'blowing your own trumpet' and 'deliberately misleading your captive market'. For me, Virgin errs considerably to the latter. Then again, arguably Virgin has done the most for restoring the reputation of the railway of any of the franchisee's, but has also done some of the most harm for the industry. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

Finally, a vicious circle. General public don't understand the railways as they're a hideously complex myriad of organisations and responsibility, therefore it's anyones game. You only have to look at the reaction to Virgin losing WC to First. And that's the industries fault. And until it gets rectified (I'll hazard a guess at never) it's going to be open to activities such as these.

 

[Dave1987]

I think you are right to a certain extent. I think I would be right in saying the public are in "love" with Virgin. Now dont get me wrong as people have said previously seeing a shiny new train with a powerful brand on the side of it automatically puts people in a positive frame of mind and they like that. But I also feel these people are expecting the Virgin style powerful brand and shiny train on every train they go on. And other TOC's simply have no way to match the power of that Virgin brand so people when getting on other TOC's are already in the frame of mind that "ow this isnt as good as Virgin". The other TOC might run a perfectly good service but because they haven't got that brand name behind them in the eyes of Joe Public they will not be able to match or better Virgin. Now I see that as a great pity. I dont blame SRB for playing on that brand but I dont think it does the rest of the industry any favours.

 

[glbotu]

No - it really did need to market itself. A lot of BR's advertising was superb, particularly after the HST was introduced (let's conveniently forget who the poster boy was, though!). The HST was one of the first trains really designed for the market, taking into account their needs, rather than a train being designed and "here you go, public".

I stand corrected on that, but I'd still maintain that the host of BR execs running various TOCs probably don't have the marketing nouse of the Virgin marketing department.

That's a little unfair on FirstGroup.

Sun Tzu was a wise bloke (read the Art of War, it's great), and he always suggested that you do not try and beat your enemy by attacking their strengths. I cannot think of many companies that could take Virgin on at a head-to-head marketing or PR game and win. That would simply have been a foolish tactic for First to adopt. They correctly chose the tactic of using ORR statistics and passenger feedback to make Virgin appear weak.

First are a bus company and they will never appear glamorous. Their strengths are shrewd cost management and extensive operational/logistics experience in a transport setting.



Just my opinions, of course.

I'm not saying they should have done this in the run up to the West Coast franchise bid, I'm saying they should have attempted such a stance back when they first started running rail franchises. It wouldn't have been about who had the best marketing department, but it would have helped Firstgroup's cause considerably more. I've used First as an example, but the same could be said for Greater Anglia, National Express etc.

I mean in general many of these problems stem from the inherent system anyway, even from just a marketing standpoint. (I could discuss the remaining problems in great depth, but that would digress the thread spectacularly). In the public eye, the TOCs run the trains and Network Rail now and again delays them and that's it. How many people even know what a RoSCo is (outside places like this forum). They're a fairly integral part of the rail franchising system, but because all their work is behind the scenes, no-one knows of their existence. No-one blames Porterbrook when their train breaks down, do they?

 

[AlterEgo]

Now dont get me wrong as people have said previously seeing a shiny new train with a powerful brand on the side of it automatically puts people in a positive frame of mind and they like that. But I also feel these people are expecting the Virgin style powerful brand and shiny train on every train they go on. And other TOC's simply have no way to match the power of that Virgin brand so people when getting on other TOC's are already in the frame of mind that "ow this isnt as good as Virgin".

So basically you're saying that it's unfair on all the other TOCs that the Virgin brand or product is so powerful?

Oh come on, you can do better than this. It's not a race to the bottom you know.

It's not even a question of style - as Pumbaa explains, NXEC regularly failed their own satisfaction benchmarks because the previous incumbent, GNER, had such a positive corporate image.

GNER were diametrically opposite to Virgin in terms of their service pitch and image, preferring to hark back to the salad days of LNER with a relatively highbrow product. It was no less powerful though - and more a reflection on NXEC who did not really have such brand penetration.

 

[Robinson]

I'm afraid I don't get why this has become a Virgin vs Chiltern poll. I have used Chiltern several times on the Marylebone-Moor St route, and have had some very good journeys with them. However, apart from one of those journeys when I was on the 1337 loco-hauled from Marylebone, all of them were somewhere between busy and rammed. If Chiltern really want to compete head-on with Virgin for the London-West Midlands market, they'll need a lot more spare capacity to accommodate all those passengers.

I have also been a regular VT customer for nearly 10 years now; my regular route used to be Manchester-Glasgow back when they had XC, but since I moved to Southampton in 2010 I have used the Euston-Glasgow service. In all those years, I have not had a bad journey with them. Yes, there have been times of disruption and delays have happened, but one of Virgin's greatest strengths has been looking after the passengers and assisting them at such times. One thing which could help Virgin a bit might be a LM service between Crewe and Preston (which was proposed a while ago IIRC), as they can get extremely busy between Warrington and Lancaster at rush-hour.

From my point of view, both operators do an excellent job at what they do, and it would be a bad idea to attempt to compare them.

 

[IanD]

I'm afraid I don't get why this has become a Virgin vs Chiltern poll.

It's a mystery to me too!

 

[HH]

I was describing modal shift. I should have said: "A larger proportion of people are choosing to leave their cars at home and take the train".

Except that's not strictly true. Car use has not declined overall. There have been some specific changes - e.g. business use, probably partly driven by the decrease in company cars, but the overall increase in rail passengers has not been due to a fall in car use.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot of BR's advertising was superb, particularly after the HST was introduced (let's conveniently forget who the poster boy was, though!).

I think you're confusing the advertising being good as entertainment (excellent camera work, nice soundtrack, slick editing, etc.), and the overall marketing plan being effective.

National TV adverts lasting 60 seconds plus are hellishly expensive. Were these campaigns effective in increasing rail travel? Were they good value for money? On these measures the ads probably don't hold up very well.

The marketing these days is a lot less glamorous, even from Virgin. But it probably does a lot better under those metrics.