WCML InterCity Franchise

snail · 26 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
Worst Group

Ho hum. Can we ban the bad puns now?

RailUK Forums

EE Andy b1 · 26 Jun 2019

Jorge Da Silva said:
Super Voyagers could be replaced I suppose allowing new bi-mode trains to replace them and the Super voyagers to go to CrossCountry.

I know this has been discussed before and the problem at the moment is that there isn't a tilting Bi-mode around to replace the Class 221s. From 2026 when most faster services are due to go via HS2 then this might not be a problem with released paths via the Trent.

Carlisle · 26 Jun 2019

EE Andy b1 said:
Once again upto the last 7 years staff had generally been quite happy, and yes plenty of them are only there because it was Virgin. .

Are you sure ? If an employer treats staff well & offers pretty good wages & T&Cs (as most TOC employees currently enjoy) then it’s unlikely the vast majority are especially concerned what brand of uniform they’re actually wearing.

northernbelle · 26 Jun 2019

EE Andy b1 said:
Whatever else, we know your views on Virgin.

Some of us have been on the railways since British Rail and gone through various changes since Privatisation.

I have to say from a personnel point of view, upto about 7 years ago Virgin/Stagecoach was the best company i had worked for since being on the railways, and that was more down to Virgin than Stagecoach that's for sure.

Didn't agree with everything they did and how they went about it but the public in general used to like the Virgin difference.
Trouble is again from my point of view everything has gone abit stale but that is more down to the delayed franchise process and the DfT.
Quite a lot of changes, i believe would have been happening on the West Coast, new trains, refurbishing existing stock, if there had been the right outright winner in 2012.

The West Coast Intercity franchise has been very successful in the years that Virgin have had it and yes they have made plenty of money for shareholders (that's franchising for you), whether some other owning company would have done as well is debatable.
Once again upto the last 7 years staff had generally been quite happy, and yes plenty of them are only there because it was Virgin. Nothing wrong with that in it's self as long as the main focus is still on rail transport and passenger satisfaction.

Have First made much of a success in any rail franchise they've been involved with. They wanted to give the keys back to GWR. SWR, TPE, both not doing great.

All companies have their ups and downs - you seem to forget the hideous days of Virgin in the late 90s, with knackered 47s and Mark 2 sets dropping like flies, only to be replaced with completely inadequate 4 car Voyagers on which a vast chunk of the network still has to use.

Were you around when Stagecoach took operation of South West Trains? The under provision of drivers and widespread industrial action? And taking 8 years between taking ownership and replacement any of its Mark 1 EMU fleet?

First has had its fair share of downs as well - but it's also had reasonable success - eras change and the terms of each franchise over the years have varied so wildly that it's impossible to tar one owning company with a single brush.

jw · 27 Jun 2019

In the 2012 West Coast franchise competition, Virgin's bid proposed replacing Voyagers with 6-car 'baby' Pendolinos. Loco haulage would have been used for the diesel lines. First proposed a smaller number of 125mph EMUs to supplement the Voyagers. More details here.

pt_mad · 27 Jun 2019

jw said:
In the 2012 West Coast franchise competition, Virgin's bid proposed replacing Voyagers with 6-car 'baby' Pendolinos. Loco haulage would have been used for the diesel lines. First proposed a smaller number of 125mph EMUs to supplement the Voyagers. More details here.

That document you linked to is fascinating and eye opening. Says First's 2012 bid included major refurbishment of stock including new seats. Can't help but feel that the boat was really missed there, because the grammar GWR HST style seats were probably still approved for new fitment for 125mph, while today new seats for 125mph would probably lead to class 800 seats, as the seemingly approved modern standard.

Interesting the part about Virgin's 2012 bid planning 135mph running on the quadrupled section of the Trent Valley. Would this ever have come off and where would HS2 be now if that had actually occured?

Also how were they planning to shave up to 15 minutes off the Glasgow services?

The Planner · 27 Jun 2019

pt_mad said:
Interesting the part about Virgin's 2012 bid planning 135mph running on the quadrupled section of the Trent Valley. Would this ever have come off and where would HS2 be now if that had actually occured?

Also how were they planning to shave up to 15 minutes off the Glasgow services?

135mph was suggested as a way of getting around the ETCS issue, it never really got anywhere and would have made little difference. HS2 would still be required. I suspect a large chunk of the 15 minutes would have come from a demand to not have any engineering allowance whatsoever in their schedules.

whhistle · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
London Midland coming back to replace Abellio would be marvellous mind....

You have mis-read.
London Midland won't be coming back (bearing in mind the majority of the people are the same as London Midland).

Jorge Da Silva · 27 Jun 2019

Any news?

Looking at the 2012 franchise bids was very interesting.

Could the new franchise replace the voyagers (potentially however what would replace it), maybe 4 trains per day to Shrewsbury, new direct services Bolton, Windermere, Barrow in Furness or Stirling possible Liverpool South Parkway (for Liverpool John Lennon Airport). Additional Trent Valley calls?

LNW-GW Joint · 27 Jun 2019

pt_mad said:
Also how were they planning to shave up to 15 minutes off the Glasgow services?

From what I remember, it was by cutting stops in the north west.
That was also the aim of the NR RUS, adding a 10th path (London-Preston/Blackpool/Carlisle) to pick up the omitted stops.
That's still sort-of the intention, but the extra trains (VT/GC) have not really played their part.
Also Liverpool keeps saying it needs the extra path.
Joining London-Wolverhampton with Birmingham-Scotland also improved capacity in the north west.

StaffsWCML · 27 Jun 2019

northernbelle said:
All companies have their ups and downs - you seem to forget the hideous days of Virgin in the late 90s, with knackered 47s and Mark 2 sets dropping like flies, only to be replaced with completely inadequate 4 car Voyagers on which a vast chunk of the network still has to use.

Were you around when Stagecoach took operation of South West Trains? The under provision of drivers and widespread industrial action? And taking 8 years between taking ownership and replacement any of its Mark 1 EMU fleet?

First has had its fair share of downs as well - but it's also had reasonable success - eras change and the terms of each franchise over the years have varied so wildly that it's impossible to tar one owning company with a single brush.

But they took over the line with junk from British Rail what are they supposed to do about that? and the great government provided stuff that some delusional people want to return to. At the time Virgin encouraged the upgrade of the line and chose the Pendolino and tilt to increase speed. I think the 4 car Voyagers were pretty much specified by the clowns at the government, like how they are still specifying trains that are too small now. Its because they cut corners for cost saving. The only real solution is to give TOCs full control of the trains they buy but a different model that the current franchising mess is needed for that.

whhistle said:
You have mis-read.
London Midland won't be coming back (bearing in mind the majority of the people are the same as London Midland).

I know they wont be coming back. It makes no difference the people are the 'same'. Abellio are still jokers.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
I think the 4 car Voyagers were pretty much specified by the clowns at the government

Nope, it was VT. The Government put all sorts of obstacles up to additional coaches/units afterwards, but at the time franchisees had huge freedom.

StaffsWCML · 27 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Nope, it was VT. The Government put all sorts of obstacles up to additional coaches/units afterwards, but at the time franchisees had huge freedom.

I suppose at that time that was all the capacity needed. I remember many trains being a lot quieter back then, mainly because they were so crap and slow.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
I suppose at that time that was all the capacity needed

No, it wasn't. It was a significant reduction in capacity because a Voyager takes far fewer passengers (due to the cab ends and wasted space) than half an HST. New stock and improved timetables were only going to increase passenger numbers as they indeed did.

There was severe overcrowding near enough from day one, and it took significant retrenchments (withdrawal from Liverpool, the WCML Scottish services and peripheral bits like Poole) to get anywhere near to improving it.

For those who might mention retaining HSTs, those were going to be for a service into Paddington that never launched, so it wouldn't have had any effect on the rest of XC.

yorkie · 27 Jun 2019

Just a reminder that this thread is about WCML InterCity Franchise (but it is about the franchise itself, and is not a 'master' thread)

Please create a new thread if you wish to discuss anything else, in the appropriate forum section (e.g. if anyone wishes to speculate on where any particular type of train might go, this is best done as a new thread - if there isn't one already - in the Speculative Ideas section). Also don't forget we have a History & Nostalgia section too!

Thanks

Jorge Da Silva · 27 Jun 2019

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-see-in-the-next-west-coast-franchise.185046/

Please post ideas for the franchise here.

StaffsWCML · 27 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
No, it wasn't. It was a significant reduction in capacity because a Voyager takes far fewer passengers (due to the cab ends and wasted space) than half an HST. New stock and improved timetables were only going to increase passenger numbers as they indeed did.

There was severe overcrowding near enough from day one, and it took significant retrenchments (withdrawal from Liverpool, the WCML Scottish services and peripheral bits like Poole) to get anywhere near to improving it.

For those who might mention retaining HSTs, those were going to be for a service into Paddington that never launched, so it wouldn't have had any effect on the rest of XC.

Fair enough. I am sure there were reasons at the time for the decision. An error of judgement.

I am sure that they would want to have had bigger trains with more capacity as it would have likely meant more revenue, if they had deemed it necessary. They obviously dropped a ball there.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
Fair enough. I am sure there were reasons at the time for the decision. An error of judgement.

I am sure that they would want to have had bigger trains with more capacity as it would have likely meant more revenue, if they had deemed it necessary. They obviously dropped a ball there.

An absolutely massive error of judgement which has caused passengers to suffer for over 20 years.

LNW-GW Joint · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
I suppose at that time that was all the capacity needed. I remember many trains being a lot quieter back then, mainly because they were so crap and slow.

XC (and WC for that matter) were losing a fortune at the time, and the limited purchases of new stock (8-car 390s and 4-car 220s) were partly due to that.
The 390s were subsequently lengthened to 9 and now 11, but the SRA refused to allow longer 22x (and TPE's 185s).
It actually took WC a decade to pay a premium, and XC is barely there now. TPE is still making a loss.
Nobody ever seems to consider the basic profitability of train services.

On the WCML, it wasn't just the trains. The infrastructure was falling apart having had no significant attention since 1960s electrification.

driver_m · 27 Jun 2019

Carlisle said:
Are you sure ? If an employer treats staff well & offers pretty good wages & T&Cs (as most TOC employees currently enjoy) then it’s unlikely the vast majority are especially concerned what brand of uniform they’re actually wearing.

If Andy is going to say what he has said, it’s because there is truth in it! I can vouch for there being employees that were attracted to the VT brand and have said so regularly. There are also things that you don’t see that we aren’t ever going to comment on over Social media.

driver_m · 27 Jun 2019

northernbelle said:
All companies have their ups and downs - you seem to forget the hideous days of Virgin in the late 90s, with knackered 47s and Mark 2 sets dropping like flies, only to be replaced with completely inadequate 4 car Voyagers on which a vast chunk of the network still has to use.

Were you around when Stagecoach took operation of South West Trains? The under provision of drivers and widespread industrial action? And taking 8 years between taking ownership and replacement any of its Mark 1 EMU fleet?

First has had its fair share of downs as well - but it's also had reasonable success - eras change and the terms of each franchise over the years have varied so wildly that it's impossible to tar one owning company with a single brush.

We are WC. Not XC. As Yorkie said, that’s nothing to do with us. The SWT point is whataboutery as well. So all we can relate to, were our not really knackered 87s and DVTs which were alright.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
XC (and WC for that matter) were losing a fortune at the time, and the limited purchases of new stock (8-car 390s and 4-car 220s) were partly due to that.

Though the Voyagers were particularly expensive, like the Class 185s which are suffering the same issue, and so a larger number of say Class 170s could have been purchased instead. Given the very limited 125mph running I think this would have been a better choice.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

driver_m said:
We are WC. Not XC. As Yorkie said, that’s nothing to do with us. The SWT point is whataboutery as well. So all we can relate to, were our not really knackered 87s and DVTs which were alright.

They weren't at all reliable. The fact that they've done another 20 years at Greater Anglia suggests this is likely due to maintenance failings.

northernbelle · 27 Jun 2019

driver_m said:
We are WC. Not XC. As Yorkie said, that’s nothing to do with us. The SWT point is whataboutery as well. So all we can relate to, were our not really knackered 87s and DVTs which were alright.

The SWT is not 'whataboutery' - it was dreadful in its early days - from a Feb 2018 article in Rail:

"SWT would gradually evolve into consistently one of the best performing and highest regarded rail businesses. But at this early stage of privatisation, the team labelled the “bus bandits” got some things badly wrong.

Stagecoach management made a mistake that led to 2,000 trains being cancelled in the space of just two months."

The WCML was as bad as the XC network in Virgin's early days - knackered trains and infrasture and poor performance - you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

northernbelle said:
The WCML was as bad as the XC network in Virgin's early days - knackered trains and infrasture and poor performance - you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Agreed. In the late 1990s it was a serious thorn in Virgin Group's side.

But other than the rather pie-in-the-sky 140mph bit, they did near enough deliver in the end.

StaffsWCML · 27 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Agreed. In the late 1990s it was a serious thorn in Virgin Group's side.

But other than the rather pie-in-the-sky 140mph bit, they did near enough deliver in the end.

Surely no one expected them to come in a magic a great service instant out of a pile of turd though. They started with crap and have mostly delivered.

I think the 140mph bit would be possible if Railtrack and NR were not so limited in funding, it really should be what we are striving for on our major routes, we are so far behind other countries in this respect with our archaic network infrastructure.

Bletchleyite · 27 Jun 2019

StaffsWCML said:
Surely no one expected them to come in a magic a great service instant out of a pile of turd though. They started with crap and have mostly delivered.

True. However, I think, like Caledonian Sleeper, people tend to object if you do try to polish a turd. VT might have been better off just operating quietly as InterCity West Coast until the Pendolinos arrived then launched in a blaze of red glory.

Actually thinking on, they did paint one unrefurbed Mk2 set they were using short-term into fresh IC livery, so maybe they learnt that.

I think the 140mph bit would be possible if Railtrack and NR were not so limited in funding, it really should be what we are striving for on our major routes, we are so far behind other countries in this respect with our archaic network infrastructure.

200km/h is a very common classic mainline speed, i.e. 125mph. To go faster, dedicated high speed lines are better.

Had it been implemented, the development of LM/LNR as a second budget long-distance operator would have been impossible. And commuter capacity much lower too. I'm not sure it was a bad thing that PUG2 (Passenger UpGrade 2, i.e. 140mph with moving block) failed.

EE Andy b1 · 27 Jun 2019

Carlisle said:
Are you sure ?

Oh yes i'm sure!
Not front end staff (Drivers) so much but certainly onboard (Catering) and platform staff. It was the lure of Virgin and the trimmings. Fluffy was the norm.

northernbelle said:
Were you around when Stagecoach took operation of South West Trains? The under provision of drivers and widespread industrial action?

First has had its fair share of downs as well - but it's also had reasonable success.

Yes i was around, yes they wanted rid of everyone and start a fresh on there own terms. Ruthless like all the bus companies that had come into rail.

That's why i said "More Virgin than Stagecoach".

As for going on about knackered locomotives and rollingstock, as a new franchise like all the rest they had to start somewhere and try and make the most of a bad lot.
It takes time to design, order, build, test, training on new builds as we are all well aware of now with all the problems being encountered now.

Anyway West Coast, not Cross Country, is in pretty good shape at the moment ready for the next chapter.

LNW-GW Joint · 27 Jun 2019

Where Virgin really made the difference was in dealing with a recalcitrant Railtrack and Network Rail, who were ready to give up on WCRM when the moving block saga became apparent.
They (and Tom Winsor for ORR, and later the SRA) showed the value of contracts.
Even so, RT/NR burned through £8 billion and still left much to do on the WCML.
There are still 75mph slow line sections which impede LNR particularly, and north of Weaver Jn still hasn't had the thorough upgrade that was intended.

EE Andy b1 · 27 Jun 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
Where Virgin really made the difference was in dealing with a recalcitrant Railtrack and Network Rail, who were ready to give up on WCRM when the moving block saga became apparent.
They (and Tom Winsor for ORR, and later the SRA) showed the value of contracts.
Even so, RT/NR burned through £8 billion and still left much to do on the WCML.
There are still 75mph slow line sections which impede LNR particularly, and north of Weaver Jn still hasn't had the thorough upgrade that was intended.

Totally agree here.
DfT, Railtrack as was & Network Rail have a lot to answer for and the West Coast never became what it should have been. Crewe re-modelled early 80s is woefully behind what is needs to be for the 21st Century but that's another story.

WCML InterCity Franchise

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member