But if they had awarded it to Virgin, the franchise may well have been signed by now unless someone else had taken legal action.No, they've said they were wrong awarding it to *anyone*.
But if they had awarded it to Virgin, the franchise may well have been signed by now unless someone else had taken legal action.No, they've said they were wrong awarding it to *anyone*.
West Coast passengers can rest assured that while we seek urgently to resolve the future arrangements the trains that run now will continue to run, with the same drivers, the same staff and timetables as planned. The tickets that people have booked will continue to be valid and passengers will be able to make their journeys as planned.
I won't hang my head in shame, how can any of us have forseen that the DFT would muck it up this badly. I didnt think even they were capable of this.
Not only that, my problem was with how public they made it, there will be several posts where i stated it is the fact that they did it publically by trying to shame First and con users into signing petition. They would have got the same result if they had gone about it quietly and requested a juridical review which is what i wish they had done.
But if they had awarded it to Virgin, the franchise may well have been signed by now unless someone else had taken legal action.
Well the Virgin fanboys really are going to be insufferable now aren't they?
Yep +1
They will have to let Virgin keep the west coast mainline after all this.
I am convinced that the right course of action is for Virgin to be offered an extension, this statement though suggests that the SoS is minded to invoke S30 and go for DOR. Conceivably that might lead to further legal action.
That may well have been the case but it may not have come to light had no-one taken legal action and it's a possibility that Virgin would still be on course for starting the new franchise in December.And it would have been done under exactly the same flawed process as them awarding it to First, which the DfT now say would have been wrong.
The franchise ends on that date. Therefore Virgin is NOT going to be running the franchise - but neither is First.
Also if t does have to go right back to the start, what about the other franchises that are now on hold pending the reviews, could they also end up going right back to the start?Just to clear up, does the entire process start again from absolute scratch, or does it go back to the four 'finalists' that First was chosen from? I suspect it's the former, but I might as well ask!
I am sure there's NO option other than to hand it over to DOR. The wording says it will be the same drivers, trains and staff - which is exactly correct. Otherwise it would say Virgin would carry on running the same service. It doesn't.
The bidding was flawed, so there was no winner. The franchise ends on that date. Therefore Virgin is NOT going to be running the franchise - but neither is First.
Just to clear up, does the entire process start again from absolute scratch, or does it go back to the four 'finalists' that First was chosen from? I suspect it's the former, but I might as well ask!
There is usually provision in franchise agreements for the term to be extended by one 'railway accounting period' isn't there?
There is usually provision in franchise agreements for the term to be extended by one 'railway accounting period' isn't there?
In fact, there will probably be a petition to have Virgin allowed to run the new franchise without any new bidding process.
The only thing this has achieved is that all the WCML improvements that were going to happen will now be delayed. Well done Richard, you cretin. FG and Virgin's bids weren't that different but now we will get nothing for some years. Oh great...
And saved First Group form Bankruptcy.
So - how many previous franchise awards would have collapsed if the incumbent operator or a failed bidder 'did a Virgin'?
That's not a good thing The sooner they go bankrupt, the better!
There is usually provision in franchise agreements for the term to be extended by one 'railway accounting period' isn't there?
Did anyone expect this outcome?