Virgin loses West Coast Franchise to First Group

I heard they already decided not to renew it #FGW

They took the option not to extend their existing franchise which they had, but are still in the running for the new one.

I work with Virgin (Not for), I believe they are a great company and do very well on West Coast. I think 'sour grapes' is a bit harsh considering the service on WC, and I deal with some problems the public never see.

Those of you who hate the seating are going to get worse seating when First Group start changing things, who do you think changed the seating on FGW!!

I honestly don't see how First can run more trains than run at the moment on West Coast, don't forget that WC don't have a diversionary freight route as with East Coast. I personally just don't see where they are going to get paths especially from Euston, we just don't have it. (I do the platforming and working with planning)

I think that new destinations are a plus but the logistics for some don't make operational sense, and are more of a gimmick.

As for the 6-car trains, my understanding is that it will be a Pantograph car in Voyagers, but I can't confirm it.
I doubt First Group who are already in huge debt can afford new trains. Bear in mind they have promised to pay £500million versus the £160million Virgin were paying. As you can see that's more than triple, so I doubt they can afford new trains.

This is MY PERSONAL view and we will have to wait and see what happens, and considering First Group's history I'm skeptical.

Guts

" said:

They took the option not to extend their existing franchise which they had, but are still in the running for the new one.

And if people have a problem with that, they should address their concerns to the people who wrote the franchise agreement, not the franchisor who is acting strictly within the terms of the contract they took on.

Perhaps the concerns are due to the problems FGW have had with things like over-crowding, lack of capacity etc. Now that wouldn't be down to the franchise being written in such a way that FGW were very tightly constrained in the rolling stock they were able to use and the difficulty in sourcing additional rolling stock within the terms of the franchise agreement, would it? And would that be because the franchise was written such a way that the franchisor was unable to act in a commercially sensible manner due to the terms of the franchise. Another one to have a go at the franchise writer rather than the franchisor, surely.

Privatisation of the railway clearly has a multitude of problems but given the problems that franchisors have because of the micro-management by the DaFT, would a nationalised railway run by the DaFT be any better equipped to react? And don't get me started about the DaFT and their plan to have every new train under the wires lugging several tons of cast metal and expensive engineering around because a civil servant who possibly travels on an EMU which joins/splits in 2 minutes has decreed that real trains can't join/split in less than 7 minutes.

" said:

They took the option not to extend their existing franchise which they had, but are still in the running for the new one.

And if people have a problem with that, they should address their concerns to the people who wrote the franchise agreement, not the franchisor who is acting strictly within the terms of the contract they took on.

Perhaps the concerns are due to the problems FGW have had with things like over-crowding, lack of capacity etc. Now that wouldn't be down to the franchise being written in such a way that FGW were very tightly constrained in the rolling stock they were able to use and the difficulty in sourcing additional rolling stock within the terms of the franchise agreement, would it? And would that be because the franchise was written such a way that the franchisor was unable to act in a commercially sensible manner due to the terms of the franchise. Another one to have a go at the franchise writer rather than the franchisor, surely.

Privatisation of the railway clearly has a multitude of problems but given the problems that franchisors have because of the micro-management by the DaFT, would a nationalised railway run by the DaFT be any better equipped to react? And don't get me started about the DaFT and their plan to have every new train under the wires lugging several tons of cast metal and expensive engineering around because a civil servant who possibly travels on an EMU which joins/splits in 2 minutes has decreed that real trains can't join/split in less than 7 minutes.

BR would have been far better equipped to react to rolling stock issues than the private operators of today.

I also suspect that the DfT would be unwilling to let any newly nationalised railway system have the "freedom" to operate the way it saw fit that BR enjoyed as this would involve the civil servants in Whitehall giving up the control they have now obtained.

Much is said of First's promise to add extra trains and services - but what were Virgin's plans in this regard?

Tim O'Toole (MD, FGW) was on the radio a couple of weeks ago claiming the the last trains before the Saver cliff-edge and the first trains after are seriously over-loaded while the trains at the shoulders of the embargo are running very-much under-utilised. The FGW plan is to reduce the walk-on fares by up to 15% and revamp the cheap fare offers so that the under-used trains receive better usage. The total effect will be an increase in revenue which helps to underpin the FGW business case.

I think you mean First Group rather than fGW.

Directly Operated Railways should get all franchises