why are you all biased towards..

n863dwt · Post by **n863dwt** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:22 am

..virgin .
they are the first toc since privatisation to rplace atlease 2/3 's of their fleet to bring travel into the 21st century..and all you lot can do is critisise.....ok sure their have been several treathing troubles but everyone has teathing probs when they start something new...
look at a car if you start driving a mk1 fiesta for 15years then buy a new fiesta it will take you time to get used to new features and things like that.

i will be the first to admit that they have overcrouding but they are trying as far as i can see.......

give them a break.

phill70 · Post by **phill70** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:29 am

i agree, virgin at least encorage people to complain, which is more than the rest do, they will get there in the end, it my take a while though.

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:54 am

phill70 wrote:it my take a while though.

While = A millenium.
And by that time, Virgin would have gone bankrupt!

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:30 am

Virgin are not having teething problems....... One of the Directors for Virgin Trains used to work for the Bus companies about 8 years ago.

About 10 years ago, there was this brilliant idea about making buses smaller and running them more frequently. What happened? Mass over crowding, a timetable that couldnt keep pace, and a larger fleet that cost more to maintain. The solution they came up with back then? Go back to bigger buses and the problem was solved.

Coincidence? odd isnt it.

The idea of the Voyager was wrong from the start. Smaller trains lead to overcrowding. Even if passenger levels had stayed the same. Mr Green said there had been a 40% growth in business, was this not foreseen?

They have outright refused to to keep the HST fleet, saying it is past its era and must be replaced to offer a better service. So they will eventually be fazed out.

Granted they replaced an ageing fleet with brand new trains, but just because their new, does it make them the right trains?

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:49 am

LucaZone wrote: Granted they replaced an ageing fleet with brand new trains, but just because their new, does it make them the right trains?

Well, lets hope GNER and First are keeping their HSTs.

phill70 · Post by **phill70** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:55 am

thats right in a way, the main problem is fixed formation trains, look what happened on the western when during the summer to cornwall 13 of 14 coach trains were replaced with a 7 coach hst, the result was mass overcrowding.
historically cross country have always had an overcrowding problem in some parts of the country(even with loco+8)
what is needed to cope with extra demand is flexabillity, which with voyagers & hst's is just not there.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:02 pm

Another fact that came from Virgin. They said that one solution to solve the over crowding would be to up the fares and get more people to take their cars instead. Completed the opposite to the government who are upping car costs to get us onto the trains.

They have already severally limited Value fares, and group bookings (which is being biased), and their reservation system? Their turning it off for at least 1 coach in every train. What difference that will make i dont know, as even ive booked a seat and had it occupied by someone who didnt book. When asked to move they refused saying it was everyone for themselves on Voyagers. And alas no conducter in sight, what a surprise.

This is why we are not very positive when talking about Virgin Trains.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:11 pm

I don't think people are really, it's mainly the voyager argument that has got in the way. Virgin have taken a good slagging in the news, newspapers, all the railway press including modern railways which is normally industry bias. The letters pages have been busting. And itâ€™s nothing to do with not liking chance, more the service doesnâ€™t work that well.

I think the Pendolinos are great trains, and am looking forward to riding one. The voyagers would have been okay if they were longer, and possible an HST2 concept. Principal reason for this is cost of comfort.

One of the big mistakes over the last 15-20 years the industry has made is putting on too many short trains. Now network capacity is at a premium the SRA is ordering cuts in services, and passengers will suffer more. If a few more coaches were put on in the first place there wouldn't be such a problem. People like the higher frequency, but we have the highest fares in western Europe. If the fares were cheaper and the trains were longer and slighter les frequent leading to greater punctuality and the chance of a seat maybe there would be less complaints? Virgin is a classic example of a TOC that has got it's sums wrong. Which is a great shame, because it's such a great company otherwise.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:24 pm

How come everyone outside the industry is saying 'we need longer trains on a less frequent time table to allow more punctuality and better service', while the TOCs are saying 'We need shorter trains, more often'.

Is noone in the rail industry listening?

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:27 pm

LucaZone wrote:How come everyone outside the industry is saying 'we need longer trains on a less frequent time table to allow more punctuality and better service', while the TOCs are saying 'We need shorter trains, more often'.

Is noone in the rail industry listening?

And anyway,10 short trains with lets say 100 seats in one train(that means 1000 seats altogether) is more expensive than a long train with 1000 seats.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:32 pm

Basildd should know. Eurostars can take about 800 people? though obviously the length of the trains at that point becomes incompatible to the network.

I must say though, its been a long time since ive seen a train come anywhere near the length of platforms at stations between Paddington and Reading.

phill70 · Post by **phill70** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:36 pm

the other problem here is the operating costs to run a train, the new ones are a lot cheaper to run than HST's, they can probally run two new ones for the price of an hst, hst power cars are not, and have never been cheap to run.
they will have to get it sorted before the summer timetable comes into operation.

60085 · Post by **60085** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:40 pm

[quote="n863dwt"]..virgin .
they are the first toc since privatisation to rplace atlease 2/3 's of their fleet to bring travel into the 21st centuryquote]

... and there still ..
To me it doesn't matter how modern the rollingstock or motive power is.
It may help but if there are underlying problems then its jsut a waste of time and money. I think, in the early 1990's, INTERCITY were doing a better job than Virgin are now on the WCML.

60085 "MANNA".

phill70 · Post by **phill70** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:44 pm

[quote="60085]
INTERCITY were doing a better job than Virgin are now on the WCML.

yes ok but the wcml is just falling to bits(it was in the BR days)

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:55 pm

And think about the XC runs. There used to be Class 47. But now, all Virign focuses is buying new trains and buying more new trains! They don't care about passenger comfort, safety, etc...

Atomic Systems

why are you all biased towards..

why are you all biased towards..

Re: why are you all biased towards..

Re: why are you all biased towards..