Star comment: Passengers real victims of rail wars
It is becoming increasingly impossible to differentiate between the heroes and villains in the bitter fight for the right to operate the lucrative West Coast Main Line rail franchise.
Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson wants a last-gasp judicial review after losing the contract in a winner-takes-all bidding battle, while new operator FirstGroup is defiantly shooting down claims that it will be unable to live up to impressive promises, which include the restoration of a direct service linking Shropshire with London.
Who is right, and who is wrong? It seems even the Government cannot make its mind up on that one at present, saying it needs a ‘chance to reflect’ on the latest raft of claims, and counter-claims.
These are worrying phrases, suggesting the whole thing will be mired in bureaucratic red tape for some time.
It is all rather baffling, since we have to assume that the Department of Transport had rigorous, detailed checks in place to help select the most appropriate bidder.
Last week’s euphoria, when FirstGroup proudly championed plans to include Telford and Shrewsbury on its London Euston service in four years’ time, suddenly seems a long, long time ago.
Will those four years turn into five or six? Or, if Virgin wins its legal battle, will Shropshire have its hopes dashed altogether once again?
One thing is certain. While the businessmen bicker, and the lawyers lick their lips at the prospect of a costly court battle, this cannot possibly spell good news for Shropshire, where the people who really matter in this mess – the frustrated, powerless commuters – wait anxiously in the sidings.
Comments for: "Star comment: Passengers real victims of rail wars"
Bill
Sorry to correct your leader, yet again, but the London-Shropshire service is part of the DfT specification and included in the Virgin bid, as are the direct services for Bolton and Blackpool. The 2016 date is controlled by rolling stock building and availability, not by either company
Please, please, realise that First is NOT the only route to a service from London to Shropshire - the longer this fallacy is allowed to persist the more confused the debate will become. Even Shrewsbury's MP appears misled.
Roger
The legal arguments between Virgin, First Group and the Dft really have no effect on our rail link with London what so ever.
The dispute relates to the system the Dft use for selecting Franchisees. We know that Virgin have come second four times and in each case the winner has failed to maintain the franchise because it was impossible to make a profit.
That means that Virgin wastes millions losing contracts it should have won and the Dft have not recognised the problem, or applied a stress test to the winning tender to assess the viability of the tender. In this case First Group’s tender. The distribution of payments for the franchise makes Virgin's bid higher for ten years and then in the last three years First Group increase payments by a total of 2 Billion. Hence if they do not make enough in first ten years they "could" walk away from the franchise having paid the government less than Virgin would have in every one of the ten year period.
There are other factors like the price reductions on tickets and new services covered by the tender. Virgin has thirty such questions. Which the Dft will not respond to.
In reality therefore it is the Dft who are in the firing line because of their management of the tendering process. It is all about the risk management and whether the Dft have learnt from previous mistakes or put another way are they acting in the best interest of the tax payer and allowing fair competition. If Virgin could prove that they had not, they could sue for damages arising out of the cost of tendering in an unfair competition.
None of this will effect reinstating of Shrewsbury's direct service because that is effected by improvements being carried by Rail Track else where.