Virgin looses west coast main line

Tilt

Ahh, I remember X-Country taking over now... they converted the Voyagers by removing the on-board shop to squeeze more capacity into 5 coaches and replacing with a very basic trolley service. AND I think this is when the digital reservation display/air-con problems got worse. So wasn't Virgin's fault then. But still think their telephone booking service was a joke.

These are some of the reasons I stopped travelling by train. Compared to Europe, we must have one of (if not the) worst train service now.

And they are putting fares up?

keystone

wealdroam wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that Arriva Cross Country are getting an extra subsidy over and above that agreed in 2007.
Is that so?

No poster's either not reading the beardy propaganda properly thats been parroted out by the BBC or is quoting the article badly. The 80% refers to ECML before it was taken back into govt hands. There is a hint of a suggstion for subsidy for XCountry but its not quantified.

Cheers

Indizeb

Let me clear up the 80% issue with Arriva Crosscountry.
They are under the goverments 'revenue support scheme' as are East midlands trains and as were First GreatWestern until last year when the declined to take the 3 year extension to avoid the £826m payments.
This revenue support scheme means that the goverment takes on 80% of the companies losses, meaning that the company can make their payments to the goverment. Therefore no public embarrassment of re-nationalising of the franchise like happened previously twice on the ECML.

So YES Arriva Crosscountry is 80% funded by the taxpayer, fact.

So, the reason 'beardy' is so upset is that the First bid and Virgin bids are practically identical until 2022 of the franchise. Then the payments dramatically rise, to the tune of £700m within 3 years.
Sound famililar eh. Oh but they can't be subsidised, as the revenue support scheme is not going to be used on future franchises. There will be a bond to repay. It's £265m.
Hmmm, so what will First do..... You do the Maths.

So that is why along with the fact that First provide a shockingly bad service on their other commuter/distance franchise and have the customer satisfaction figures to prove it, Virgin, a lot of the travelling public and the media think this stinks.

Buzby

For anyone wishing to sign the e-petition to have MP's look at the way the franchise decision was made, you might want to do it here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37180

bap98189

Livingthedream wrote: »

As to the safest trains, you'll find that the present inservice trains are the safest, the Pendolino (these trains were ordered and funded by Virgin)

Actually they weren't. All the rolling stock is purchased and owned by the UK government. They are then leased to the franchise holders.

The reason it is set up this way is that with franchises only lasting a few years, no company can ever invest in new trains or carriages and hope to get a return. Trains have to last 20 or 30 years, so nobody would invest in trains if they run the risk of losing the franchise long before they can hope to see any sort of return on that investment.

1echidna

Labour calls for West Coast Mainline franchise review

My view FWIW is that you just can't have a losing bidder (in this case Virgin and Branson) trying to dictate what happens under any circumstances.

TrickyWicky

Livingthedream wrote: »

What can be done? go back to the good old days of BR? with clapped out rolling stock, crumbling infrastructure and industrial action very couple of weeks. Nice

To be honest, BR in fairness was a far superior train operating company and railway than any of the current mob. Sure, they were using knackered slam door stock but just look at them - by the time they were finally taken out of service most of them were 50, yes FIFTY years old and still going strong. How many times have you heard of these new garfangled plastic computerised trains throwing a wobbly and breaking down? - Far more than the slammers.

BR were short of money yes there is no denying that. They got just 10% of their income from the government while the rest came from ticket sales alone. Intercity was fully funded by tickets only. At the same time BR were pivitol in the channel tunnel planning / negotiations and also running all sorts of other wonderful things that played part of our once great empire. For all that, they took just 10% of their income from the government as a subsidy.

The current mobs subsidy (network rail mainly) is far greater than BRs 10%. Sure, you get nice new trains for it (that are less reliable) but in return you're propping up the banks who own them and lease them to the train operating companies and THAT is why your fares continue to rise every year - to keep fat cats happy.

It's been proven many times that you can't run a railway for profit without cutting other things. BR did a good job of running a 'basic' service considering the income they had to do it with. It's people like you who moaned about them who destroyed their efforts that kept this country running. Instead of seeing what they achieved and continued to do on a daily basis, all you saw was the bad in them.

Virgin did run a nice service I'll admit however I wasn't impressed with a £240 fare we once had to pay to go from A to B. BR managed a trip with a bigger gap between A & B for half of that on the legendary Intercity 125.

Quite frankly I (and many others) are all in favour of British Rail being resurrected.

As for Branson.. expensive (though the trains are nice) and he's getting more and more minted for it. If he losses his little train set that makes him lots of beans to count on a daily basis then I'm all for it.

TrickyWicky

bap98189 wrote: »

Actually they weren't. All the rolling stock is purchased and owned by the UK government. They are then leased to the franchise holders.

Rubbish. I am involved in railway circles myself and know many others who are even deeper in it and it's common knowledge that the trains are mostly owned by the banks - HSBC being one of the biggest players in the rail industry.

The government washed its hands of train ownership and operating years ago. They don't even want the track beds but are forced to have them due to Railtracks massive carelessness.

Livingthedream

TrickyWicky wrote: »

To be honest, BR in fairness was a far superior train operating company and railway than any of the current mob.

Eh No, you'll find that BR was poorly run by it's management, coupled with a serious lack of investment by progressive governments, privatisation was the only answer to sort those problems out.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Sure, they were using knackered slam door stock but just look at them - by the time they were finally taken out of service most of them were 50, yes FIFTY years old and still going strong. How many times have you heard of these new garfangled plastic computerised trains throwing a wobbly and breaking down? - Far more than the slammers.

And without privatisation those 50 year old trains will still be running and if another Grayrigg happened how many other people would have been killed due to a lack of investment.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

THAT is why your fares continue to rise every year - to keep fat cats happy.

Unfortunately that's a private company for you, driven by shareholders and profits, mind you with privatisation you got the investment that bought nice new safe trains, which unfortunately BR could never deliver.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

It's people like you who moaned about them who destroyed their efforts that kept this country running. Instead of seeing what they achieved and continued to do on a daily basis, all you saw was the bad in them.

Lol, love the bad attitude and internet anger. But what are you ranting about, is it BR, Virgin Trains, Privatisation or the railways in general.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Quite frankly I (and many others) are all in favour of British Rail being resurrected.

TBH I just want a rail service that's the envy of the world, whether its run by the state or private I don't care, by the way East Coast is already in state hands maybe in a few years if First fail it too could be in the taxpayers hands again.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

As for Branson.. expensive (though the trains are nice) and he's getting more and more minted for it. If he losses his little train set that makes him lots of beans to count on a daily basis then I'm all for it.

TBH I too couldn't careless who runs the West Coast as long as there's no poor value to money service for passengers and no railway jobs get the axe, unfortunately whether it's Virgin or the First I think both options will happen over time.

TrickyWicky

Livingthedream wrote: »

Eh No, you'll find that BR was poorly run by it's management, coupled with a serious lack of investment by progressive governments, privatisation was the only answer to sort those problems out.

No not really. The government now subsidise the railways more than they did when BR was running them. The government didn't want to invest any more money when BR was privatised and now they're forced to subsidise a lot of it.

Livingthedream wrote: »

And without privatisation those 50 year old trains will still be running and if another Grayrigg happened how many other people would have been killed due to a lack of investment.

Those old trains were getting knackered as main line trains yes but they were still far more reliable. I actually miss them despite the lack of gadgets. If you think the slammers were unsafe, try the third worlds trains. Then you'll know what dangerous really is.

As for Grayrigg, that was a Network Rail balls up due to negligence. You can't pin that on the age of BRs old slammers.

Livingthedream wrote: »

Unfortunately that's a private company for you, driven by shareholders and profits, mind you with privatisation you got the investment that bought nice new safe trains, which unfortunately BR could never deliver.

They could if the government had given them a better subsidy. At the time of BR operating, they were the lowest government subsidised railway in europe. Now our network is probably the highest subsidised and a lot of profit goes to share holders and not the service itself.

Livingthedream wrote: »

Lol, love the bad attitude and internet anger. But what are you ranting about, is it BR, Virgin Trains, Privatisation or the railways in general.

None, I was ranting at another poster for slating BR who considering the total lack of resources and their hands continually being tied behind their backs by the government, did a damn good job with the little they had left.

BR were repeatedly being targetted by the conservatives year after year. It's still going on now in case you didn't know - BR (yes they still exist as BRBR) are being closed down for good next year by the current conservative mob. Since privatisation they've been working to sell off disused railway assets and deal with workplace claims etc. Even now after all those years, BR is STILL serving the country.

Livingthedream wrote: »

TBH I just want a rail service that's the envy of the world, whether its run by the state or private I don't care

So do I but the private sector won't deliver the same impressive mighty railways we once had unless they're rolling around in so much loot its spilling out the windows.

Livingthedream wrote: »

unfortunately whether it's Virgin or the First I think both options will happen over time.

Sad truth is you're probably right. This railway competition thing was never about providing us a better service it was only about who could bid the most money to the government and operate on the smallest budget. Just like BR were forced to. I think that proves a point.