If I remember correctly, the alternatives to Virgin at the time were a manangement buy-out and maybe National Express.
Only VT (51% Branson plus 49% private equity eventually sold to Stagecoach) offered anything better then a like-for-like modernisation (ie 110mph non-tilt) which was the baseline DfT deal when Railtrack was privatised.
VT contracted with OPRAF first for a 125mph/tilting railway (PUG1) and then with Railtrack for a 140mph railway (PUG2).
Nobody else remotely had the ambition to do that, when their money was very much at risk.
VT may not have "bought" the 390 fleet but they underwrote the deal with Alstom and Angel and manage the fleet very effectively.
They may not have "paid for" the WCRM at the time but they are paying for it now in access charges, and the whole 125mph/tilt thing would have been ditched without them.
The VHF timetable may eventually have been set by DfT, but it was the nearest they could get to VT's originally contracted PUG2 service without a 140mph line and without more 390s.
And can you name another franchisee which has invested as much "blood and treasure" into their franchise?
Branson could well have pulled out in 2000 because of the brand damage, and left the entire mess with DfT. Instead he hired Chris Green and stuck with it.
I'm no particular fan of the Virgin empire, but most of the comments above don't do justice to VT's efforts over 15 years through about five changes of regulatory regime.
More important, if you line up First, Keolis or Abellio against VT, who do you reckon will do the most for the franchise in the NEXT 15 years?
