The best option?
And you say that (I guess) with no knowledge of their bid or what they proposed, nor what the others proposed?
Or do you mean, you like Virgin as a company and wanted them to win?
Because "the best" and "what I want" are two very different things.
Except there is no intention within NR to do that.When HS2 is open and all principal inter city trains are operated by the new (non tilting) high speed stock, there will be absolutely no justification for (expensive) tilting trains on the WCML. Expect to see speed limits harmonised in order to increase line capacity.
MTR operates TfL Rail.SNCF are arguably the most experienced out of all three high speed bidders.
Virgin/Stagecoach have done a good job on the classic side of the WCP for many years.
Many people thought Stagecoach was the best option with the SW retender -they were probably right (with no details of the Stagecoach bid until after). Past experience with First for many is often horrific, and I say that being disappointed about losing TPE. Admittedly MTR haven’t really demonstrated their skills in the UK to make a completely sound judgement.
MTR as part of the SWR are purely financial backers.SNCF are arguably the most experienced out of all three high speed bidders.
Virgin/Stagecoach have done a good job on the classic side of the WCP for many years.
Many people thought Stagecoach was the best option with the SW retender -they were probably right (with no details of the Stagecoach bid until after). Past experience with First for many is often horrific, and I say that being disappointed about losing TPE. Admittedly MTR haven’t really demonstrated their skills in the UK to make a completely sound judgement.
I know that the DfT works in mysterious ways its wonders to perform, but I don't understand the need for the WCML/HS2 TOC to include an experienced operator of high speed trains. What is the rationale? As I see it:SNCF are arguably the most experienced out of all three high speed bidders.
SNIPPED
By harmonised you mean slowed down.....
Except there is no intention within NR to do that.
MTR operates TfL Rail.
MTR as part of the SWR are purely financial backers.
The reverse of what you state is true, otherwise high density metro systems wouldn't work.Plus reduced speed means increased headways means reduced capacity, unless the whole WCML is re-signalled (which would be daft given the modernity of the signaling).
Metro signals aren't spaced for 125mph thoughThe reverse of what you state is true, otherwise high density metro systems wouldn't work.
Yes, as pretty much all of it is due for renewal so it will be designed for whatever the strategic need is deemed to be when it is resignalled.What is the signalling like north of Crewe/Stoke? Is there scope for 'harmonisation' in that stretch?
I'm not quite sure if your post was meant to be in reply to mine (#36) immediately above yours! Assuming it was then my comment on those things which you listThe DfT keep banging about HS2 being "world class".
For the TOC I should think that means things like safety, ticketing and PR, roll-out skills, integration with existing services, and how to work with several infrastructure providers (and the winner of the rolling stock competition).
Of the WCP bidders, Virgin/Stagecoach/SNCF probably came closest to those skills, with Virgin's airline experience and SNCF's high speed.
MTR/Guangshen run a high frequency but fairly short and simple line (90 miles), with what looks like low fares and high custom.
The service is complicated by being closely linked to the Chinese high-speed network model; MTR seems to have a minor role.
Trenitalia has a good high speed network (with competition from NTV), but it's a state setup and the major decisions must have been taken long ago by the government.
Their high speed safety record is good, but elsewhere in Italy there have been recent mishaps.
RENFE's network is similar, with many rolling stock types, plus the added complication of dual gauge for through services to the classic network.
They don't run anything like a clockface timetable, and seem to be to be a take-it-or-leave it operator rather than customer-focussed.
RENFE has a bad high speed accident on its hands at Santiago de Compostela in 2013, in the transition from high speed to classic running.
But then DB had Eschede in 1998 and SNCF had Eckwersheim in 2015 (LGV being tested).
Losing Stagecoach and pals may have been necessary, but the competition is the poorer without them.
is that none of these points have anything to do with the speed of the trains. They are true for many franchises - including gWr and LNER which have had the IEP trains issued to them and the Kent franchise which uses both Network Rail and HS1 infrastructure.safety, ticketing and PR, roll-out skills, integration with existing services, and how to work with several infrastructure providers (and the winner of the rolling stock competition
The whole process of planning and building HS2 is back to front - it is almost identical to the situation when the Channel Tunnel was built. In that case building the tunnel took priority and the method of operating the tunnel took a back seat. The operator, Eurotunnel (now Getlink), was set up by Transmanche Link the international consortium of contractors building the tunnel and it had to deal with whatever the builders had decided to build. One of the results was many years of less than stellar financial performance for which the original shareholders in Eurotunnel paid handsomely - including me!
They should merge London North Western Railway and the West Coast franchise together.
SWR isn't doing to well but you could equally lay the blame on MTR for that...
Just laughable. The Great Western franchise has been pretty much badly run from day one, by Great Western Holdings and WorstGroup. There have been periods when it has been reasonably good (notably under Mike Carroll and Chris Kinchin-Smith’s leadership, but also noting the recovery under Andrew Haines), but it has otherwise been poor for a sustained period.My preference is First/Trenitalia, First have a good track record with FGW (not so much GWR)
No, that would be the worst possible thing to do. One operator would mean one fare. LNWR offer some very good value fares if you don’t mind a longer journey and these would be abolished as there would be no commercial reason to offer them.They should merge London North Western Railway and the West Coast franchise together.
Are you sure? I was under the impression the split was so the WMCA could take over / take a more active role in overseeing the WMR part.I think they planned to do that hence why the West Midlands Franchise is two different businesses
No, that would be the worst possible thing to do. One operator would mean one fare. LNWR offer some very good value fares if you don’t mind a longer journey and these would be abolished as there would be no commercial reason to offer them.
Are you sure? I was under the impression the split was so the WMCA could take over / take a more active role in overseeing the WMR part.
Just laughable. The Great Western franchise has been pretty much badly run from day one, by Great Western Holdings and WorstGroup. There have been periods when it has been reasonably good (notably under Mike Carroll and Chris Kinchin-Smith’s leadership, but also noting the recovery under Andrew Haines), but it has otherwise been poor for a sustained period.
My preference for WCP would have been Stagecoach, but I’m now thinking anyone but Worst.
Why does it mean one fare? GTR operate Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink brands, but there are different fares.No, that would be the worst possible thing to do. One operator would mean one fare. LNWR offer some very good value fares if you don’t mind a longer journey and these would be abolished as there would be no commercial reason to offer them.
Because reasonably soon they will be back into at least two different franchises which would be a useless move if they offered every ticket at exactly the same price. GTR also doesn't get paid any of the revenue, that goes straight to DfT. For that reason, GTR has no incentive or interest to change the fare box at all.Why does it mean one fare? GTR operate Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink brands, but there are different fares.
Much though I agree with the sentiment, the reality is that existing West Coast franchise services will stop more and will thus become more like the semifast LNR services we have now. One of the main aims of Phase 1 of HS2 is to increase capacity on the WCML south of Rugby, thus an integrated timetable between West Coast and LNR is required in order to make the most of this. West Coast may become the new LNR in terms of fares.I also do not agree with the idea of merging London Northwestern and West Coast into one franchise. As previously mentioned, whilst they go to common destinations such as London, Birmingham and Liverpool, they are kept competitive by appealing to two different markets.
Incumbent Virgin Trains promotes a fast and glam service, but only if you pay a glamorous price. London Northwestern Railway promotes a more cheap and cheerful approach, and the real cost is spending an hour or two extra on their train.
I would agree though that after HS2 one or two services from Virgin Trains / whoever is operating West Coast at the time transfers over to London Northwestern such as all of the London to Birmingham terminators.
I'm thinking that the First/Trenitalia joint bid is favourable. First operate the Transpennine Express franchise, which is long distance, so have experience.