It was around this time that advance fares became widespread and in at least some cases, walk-up fares significantly increased. I think it would be obvious that people would switch to the cheaper advance fares once they were made available even if they were not primarily intended for business use.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Virgin reckon WCML was a "struggling rail artery"
- Thread starter Old Timer
- 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
Well, as a WCML user before and after privatisation, here's few I noticed:
1) Much more reliable service.
2) Much faster service.
3) Much more expensive service but good bargins to be had if you can book in advance.
4) Much better on-board customer service (1st class).
5) Much more frequent service.
6) Train interiors not as comfortable as the old Mk3s
So yes, mostly big improvements, so in my book Virgin have a case (even if all the above is not directly down to them, it happened under their watch. As a customer, that's all I care about. I leave the internal politics to railway employees).
Snapper
Established Member
Give over, there were never 'certain assurances' given by Ministers - it simply wasn't in their power. They didn't hold the cards - ORR did and they gave an explicit warning about open access in the ITT. This is nothing but unsubstantiated fantasy.
You talk about 'discussions' leading up to the bid and completely fail to understand how the bid process works. Anyone who does will know how all this is bluff and bluster.
Why not just admit the truth instead of playing charades. There's no conspiracy - GNER got it badly wrong and overbid - as Chris Garnett admits himself.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I would have to agree with all of that as a customer myself and not affiliated with the Railways any other way
The question isn't who is to blame for the PUG2 disaster but when it went wrong who should suffer? When 2 companies enter into an agreement where both would profit handsomely if it succeeds then why should 1 of the parties still make a significant profit when it all goes wrong? Railtrack shareholders suffered as, in part, the escalating costs helped bankrupt the company, yet Virgin retained the franchise and over the life of it have taken dividends of nearly £200 million whilst the tax payer has funded the project.
It has been argued that both GNER and NXEC took a gamble and lost, and both lost their franchises. Virgin took one but retained theirs. In NXEC's case, yes it was a very ambitious bid in the first place, but the financial crisis was wholly unforeseeable, problems with PUG2 were foreseeable and many engineering experts at the time stated it was doomed to failure.
martinsh
Established Member
Two of those things you listed (3 & 6) are NOT improvements !
As for the others ...
1) quite definitely NOT more reliable (but not Virgins fault mainly)
2) yes, faster
4) doesn't apply to the vast majority of passengers who travel standard class
5) not if you live in Lichfield, Tamworth or Nuneaton ! Or if you're not travelling to/from London. [And my local stations (Crewe / Stafford) still have the roughly same frequency to London ]
The argument here is that it is not the remit of intercity express services on the WCML to provide a service for Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield.
You must be joking! It was always touch and go whether the knackered 87 and its train would get there, or whether it or the one in front would break down. I've lost count of the number of times we sat for ages while a fitter tried to free off the jammed-on brakes or whatever, or the DVT lost communications contact with the loco, or the times we'd make unscheduled switches to the slow line and then a stop at somwhere like Leighton Buzzard to pick up a whole train of passengers stranded by their train breaking down, and our 1st class being de-classified to accomodate them!
I have never experienced a single serious delay or failure since the Pendolinos took over and post WCML upgrades. I'm sure there are still failures, but they must be far fewer now for me to notice that difference!
4) Just because you don't use 1st (I use it about half the times I travel) doesn't negate it.
5) I said 'things I'd noticed'. Manchester has 3 trains per hour each way since VHF, one of which stops at my local station. Again, a big improvement as far as I am concerned. Again, if your local service has not got more frequent, that doesn't negate the improvement to the services that have done so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil6219
Member
As I was reading this thread I caught a glimpse of the new Virgin Money ad, which highlights the main bits of Virgin Group's history (I notice an absence of Virgin Cola and Virgin Bride & the cosmetics but that's besides the point). I thought the ad was good in my opinion.
Anyway,
Can I suggest that a reason that most enthusiasts have a dislike for Virgin is perhaps because so much has changed since they took over from Intercity and in their opinion it changed for the worse...
Gone were the 86s, 87s & 90s from the WCML, the 47s were withdrawn from XC and all were replaced by generic units. The same units which no longer offered big windows for better views nor allow anyone to poke their head out of the droplights.
I have that view, I think back to how much more I enjoyed the railway even 10 years ago before everything was replaced and what it has become now.
The thing is, the railway is a business and things had to change, yes the AC electrics could soldier on today (and still do for Anglia/One/NXEA/Abellio) as could the 47s but how much longer could they run without the need for intensive maintenance? Speeds of 125mph would only be achievable for the Class 43 HSTs so everything else plods along at 90-110mph which would make it less attractive to travel long distance by train, especially considering the rise in the domestic airline market.
Yes Virgin have a good PR department, well actually they have an extremely good PR department but what companies don't these days?
As for what happened about financing, people screwing others over and everything else I really can't say (beacause I don't know)...
Phil
Anyway,
Can I suggest that a reason that most enthusiasts have a dislike for Virgin is perhaps because so much has changed since they took over from Intercity and in their opinion it changed for the worse...
Gone were the 86s, 87s & 90s from the WCML, the 47s were withdrawn from XC and all were replaced by generic units. The same units which no longer offered big windows for better views nor allow anyone to poke their head out of the droplights.
I have that view, I think back to how much more I enjoyed the railway even 10 years ago before everything was replaced and what it has become now.
The thing is, the railway is a business and things had to change, yes the AC electrics could soldier on today (and still do for Anglia/One/NXEA/Abellio) as could the 47s but how much longer could they run without the need for intensive maintenance? Speeds of 125mph would only be achievable for the Class 43 HSTs so everything else plods along at 90-110mph which would make it less attractive to travel long distance by train, especially considering the rise in the domestic airline market.
Yes Virgin have a good PR department, well actually they have an extremely good PR department but what companies don't these days?
As for what happened about financing, people screwing others over and everything else I really can't say (beacause I don't know)...
Phil
I remember one journey back from Euston many years ago. As was quite usual then there were no afternoon direct trains to Wilmslow, so I had to change at Crewe off the 87 / MK3s for an EMU 'stopper'. Even though the 323s were in service by then (just), our train that afternoon was one of the orginal slam-door AC EMUs dating from the early 60s. It must have been about the last time one of them ran in service.
It was a hot summer afternoon, and it was good to be able to drop the window in the door right down and stand by it admiring the view and getting a blast of cool air.
The guard came along. "Where did they dig this heap up from?" I enquired. "Ooh I like them" he replied. "They are slow enough that I can easily check all the tickets between stops, and I don't have to operate the doors either!".
It was a hot summer afternoon, and it was good to be able to drop the window in the door right down and stand by it admiring the view and getting a blast of cool air.
The guard came along. "Where did they dig this heap up from?" I enquired. "Ooh I like them" he replied. "They are slow enough that I can easily check all the tickets between stops, and I don't have to operate the doors either!".
If 2 companies make an agreement and one of them fails to deliver its side of the agreement why should the other party suffer as well?
Old Timer
Established Member
Oh come, come Snapper, dont be so duplicious, WE BOTH know that this is wrong, and we BOTH know the degree to which Labour in power interefered with the most detailed of isses. Civil Servants were seen as merely pawns in carrying through Labour party policy.
Even the head of the Civil Service made this point about neutrality and spin doctors giving instructions to Civil Servants during the "Good day to bury bad news" incident.
However if you believe that potential Franchisees did not get to see and speak with Ministers (remembering that many successful ones had very close links with Labour and its funding) then that says much.
I would never have expected you to say a single good thing about GNER, and I see that the topic is becoming akin to a Manchester United site, with 98% of people slagging off GNER most probably never having even travelled on their trains, in the same way the a similar proportion have neverbeen to Old Trafford and a goodly proportion dont even know where Manchester is.
On that basis I am off to leave you to it. We dont see much about Virgin from you these days, I trust they are still looking after you OK ?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
It was - when parts of the WCML were closed for WCML improvement works! MML did very well with their Manchester-Sheffield-London services even though they didn't prove to be very punctual.
Old Timer
Established Member
Amazing that if it was so appalling, you continued to use them isn't it.
You must be the most unlucky ever passenger with all those failures, indeed it must have been really lucky that they were even able to get you to London at all what with being blocked and delayed by all those other failed trains.
For someone so taken by BA, and its vastly better service as we keep being told, (although this was at a time when business passengers were deserting in droves becasue of poor service) it is a complete mystery as to why you didn't just use them.
Maybe it was some masochistic tendency to experience failures or maybe the truth about the WCML performance is a lot different ?
OT - Good user name; archetypal old time rail man, ain’t cha! There's no logical reason you'd be so bitter otherwise!
Company at that time would only pay rail fares for domestic travel, not air fares (US company, who didn't know or care that I could fly BA cheaper than 1st class BR), so despite the unreliable service I had little option but to use it.
As a customer, I'm delighted with the improvements that have come about since those days on WCML - which is what this thread's about. It's not about bitter old men with axes to grind trying to deny how it used to be a lot worse.
CS (no connection with the railway or BA, so no axe to grind at all. Just a customer of both).
Company at that time would only pay rail fares for domestic travel, not air fares (US company, who didn't know or care that I could fly BA cheaper than 1st class BR), so despite the unreliable service I had little option but to use it.
As a customer, I'm delighted with the improvements that have come about since those days on WCML - which is what this thread's about. It's not about bitter old men with axes to grind trying to deny how it used to be a lot worse.
CS (no connection with the railway or BA, so no axe to grind at all. Just a customer of both).
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I think your username is quite good as well, in that you don't stop speaking!
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
tbtc
Veteran Member
Can we bury the myth of all Trent Valley stations having a good/frequent London service? Nuneaton certainly had a fairly regular WCML service, but not all of them - the current LM service is the best level of service that most of these stations have had in my lifetime (its not all about direct London services either - a link to Stafford/ Rugby/ Northampton etc is of more use for day-to-day travel)
In hindsight we should never have had a "profit making" infrastructure provider with shareholders etc. The requirements for a long term investment led organisation are totally alien to the short term shareholder focussed world.
Did they?
From memory (and its going back a while) the average load on the Hope Valley HSTs was only double figures (seventy-something?), and MML had to downgrade Nottingham to just one train an hour to find stock/paths for the temporary Manchester service.
From speaking to some round these parts it was more trouble than it was worth - disrupting things in the East Midlands to help Manchester out (since Manchester was nothing to do with MML) - good for the railway overall to maintain a Manchester link, but I don't think MML benefited (compared to the additional Nottingham - Leicester/London services they lost as a result)
martinsh
Established Member
Agreed, but this thread is about Virgin not LM. I would call it disingenuous to say the least to claim that one of the benefits of Virgin is a better local service along the Trent Valley !
From my experience it was an average of 70 per coach !!
Virgin WC have a mixed record, but most passengers would say more good than bad. However they have been very handsomely rewarded for it. The franchise has been a gold mine - undoubtedly by far the most profitable one for the owning companies over the past 10 years.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Last years results, Franchise payment to Government from Virgin £110m profit £55.7m, revenues of £753million. Go back couple of years, 2008 revenue £581m subsidy £119.61m profit £56.45m. 2009 revenue £611m, profit £76.42m subsidy £24.1m.
Its pretty clear Virgin have continued to grow revenues, gone from subsidy to franchise payments and profitability declined.
Its pretty clear Virgin have continued to grow revenues, gone from subsidy to franchise payments and profitability declined.
Snapper
Established Member
More whaffle.
Admit it OT - you've been caught out again. Someone with access to the facts and who uses them to back up their argument has exposed your spin and innuendo. Your response is to bluster even more and offer not a shread of evidence for anything that you say.
Another fact for you. Ministers and the DfT are not responsible for granting open access applications. ORR do that. They have demonstrated their independence from the wishes of DfT in the past and continue to do so.
It was ORR who granted Hull Trains and Grand Central open access to the ECML - there's not a cat in hells chance that Ministers would turn round to GNER and say 'oh - don't worry about open access, we'll sort that out'
Also, one only has to look at the timeline for open access on the EC. Hull were granted it in 2002. GC had their first application in in 2004. For GNER to turn round and use the excuse that they 'didn't know' (despite all this and despite the letter sent to all bidders) simply isn't credible.
As for my views on GNER. I used their services on a regular basis and I had a lot of time for Chris Garnett. But that doesn't stop me being a dispassionate observer. Ive long questioned exactly what GNERs legacy is - as compared to other TOCs there's very little of it other than the myth. They never deliverd on any of the major promises (new trains, parkway stations) and (contrary to what you claim) they contributed little in the way of premium payments (only ever making two). The whole of their first franchise was subsidised and they were let off another £100m after that.
So, which of us is propagating a myth?
Last edited:
What I still don't understand is people moan about Virgin, yet can they name another TOC who does anything better? They are all as bad as each other. Perhaps it's just a case of sour grapes as Virgin took the first step and introduced a new generation of trains which oldies don't like.
I used GNER on a semi regular basis and found that at the beginning they staffed up well but did nothing too special with the service, most of the staff were good but no different on average to other TOC's I used.
My main problem with them was all the shouting they did about how wonderful they were but did very little about fulfilling their "commitments" i.e new parkway stations.
You can always tell when someone has "lost" the arguement when they resort to personal comments about others.
Snapper
Established Member
Quite. When it comes to a concrete legacy GNER have left hardly anything. None of their promises of new trains or new stations came to anything. They built themselves a reputation for service with their first franchise and Chris Garnett was well respected both by his staff and the industry. They did start to put some of the romance back into rail travel. But even that went badly wrong once they realised they'd screwed up the finances.
When it came to the second franchise that service ethos went down the pan as they tried to squeeze as much revenue out of passengers as possible. Any regular traveller can't have failed to have seen how their Train Managers/Revenue staff were with anyone who had the wrong ticket - for whatever reason. They could be very very unpleasant to people and it created a horrible atmosphere.
The problem, perhaps, for GNER is that while it's great to bring back the romance of rail travel (which I still think exists for Eurostar), a lot of passengers on an Intercity train actually don't care. They're quite likely regular users that care about different things that the off-peak leisure travelling family on a nice break (who may not have actually used the restaurant anyway!).
And I can remember threads on here (and other forums) about the POOR service from GNER when they began to struggle to make money. In fact, by the end I almost think many passengers would have been happy to see them go.
And I can remember threads on here (and other forums) about the POOR service from GNER when they began to struggle to make money. In fact, by the end I almost think many passengers would have been happy to see them go.
Old Timer
Established Member
You make much about what I claim, which in fact I never did. However the RMT made this statement at the time. :
With your usual response to an argument you carefully try to dispute "facts" which were never made, and to turn the debate away from its origins by introducing and responding to matters that were never there.
I have previously congratulated you upon the mentorship you have obviously had from your colleagues, as it shows and follows the pattern I would have expected.
Your continued assertions that Ministers had no influence and that the ORR was somehow the only part of Government where Labours sticky little fingers were not present is absurd, as you know and as you carefully try to avoid answering.
I suggest you read The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze.
I really cannot be bothered to get into petty arguments from people whose idea of customer service relate to the colour of the carriages and other emotive opinions. I would just point out GNER was awarded the title of Best Rail Operator in Great Britain by the British Travel Awards. I believe it also received awards in respect of bycyclists and I am sure also at least one for passenger service.
You suggest you have used GNERs services many times, in which case you should have been aware of the level of staffing on the trains, and the customer service which was much better than Virgin's has ever been, however the original topic was the suggestion by Virgin that the WCML was a struggling artery before they came along and magically made it so much better, which was not the case at all.
- Status