Virgin gets Pendolino lengthening "franchise"

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
<richardf@systemed.net> wrote:

>DFT press release:
>
>(DFT) Step forward in Pendolino lengthening project
>
>Agreement has been reached with Virgin Rail Projects Ltd to support
>the Department for Transport's plans to introduce longer 'Pendolino'
>trains on the West Coast Main Line.
>
>The agreement - a Notice to Proceed - means that Virgin Rail Projects
>Ltd is the chosen bidder for the Service Provider contract.
>
>The Service Provider will support DfT throughout the design,
>manufacture, delivery, testing and commissioning of new 'Pendolino'
>rolling stock through to the end of the current West Coast franchise,
>on 31st March 2012.
>
>A 'Notice to Proceed' means that Virgin Rail Projects Ltd can now
>review and enter into Interim Lease and Interim maintenance contracts
>for the new rolling stock.

Thank goodness.

And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin doing
the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness knows how
much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.
--
Paul C

"Paul Corfield" <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:auj394lr1c2aehsiep9gt5eca0u67tkp5g@
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
> <richardf@systemed.net> wrote:
>
>> DFT press release:
>>
>> (DFT) Step forward in Pendolino lengthening project
>>
>> Agreement has been reached with Virgin Rail Projects Ltd to support
>> the Department for Transport's plans to introduce longer 'Pendolino'
>> trains on the West Coast Main Line.
>>
>> The agreement - a Notice to Proceed - means that Virgin Rail Projects
>> Ltd is the chosen bidder for the Service Provider contract.
>>
>> The Service Provider will support DfT throughout the design,
>> manufacture, delivery, testing and commissioning of new 'Pendolino'
>> rolling stock through to the end of the current West Coast franchise,
>> on 31st March 2012.
>>
>> A 'Notice to Proceed' means that Virgin Rail Projects Ltd can now
>> review and enter into Interim Lease and Interim maintenance contracts
>> for the new rolling stock.
>
> Thank goodness.
>
> And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin
> doing the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness
> knows how much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.

Well, at least they did end up with the most sensible solution...

In message
<7c286815-4a7d-4bd0-9ffe-01883b73fc9d@27g2000hsf..com>, at
07:23:28 on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst <richardf@systemed.net>
remarked:
>"Passengers will see a 45% increase in long distance services because
>of the £8.8bn West Coast Main Line modernisation,

Is that 45% more trains (compared to when?) or 45% more seats?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vftKCYMsQdkIFAfP@perry.co.uk...
> In message
> <7c286815-4a7d-4bd0-9ffe-01883b73fc9d@27g2000hsf..com>, at
> 07:23:28 on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst <richardf@systemed.net>
> remarked:
>>"Passengers will see a 45% increase in long distance services because
>>of the £8.8bn West Coast Main Line modernisation,
>
> Is that 45% more trains (compared to when?) or 45% more seats?

Interesting point - the VWC increase in trains/seats as a result of this
December's high frequency service is only shown as 32% in their briefing
(available on the DfT site). Perhaps that figure includes TPEx and London
Midland too?

Highly unlikely that the Government would inject a totallly spurious
statistic into an anouncement though is it... :-)

Paul

On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, Chris Tolley <cj...@supanet.com> wrote:

>
> Are any of the coaches from Long Marston to be used again?

No, probably not.

All 106 carriages will be new build. And their integration is likely
to be planned with a full overhaul of the sets as that way you do not
have mechanical parts and bogies with differing life cycles in the
same set, which is asking for trouble.

And it is worth pointing out that Virgin Rail Project is a separate
company and has nothing directly to do with the Virgin Trains
franchise, as if you look carefully, the completion of the project is
due after the end of the franchise.

As for the 45%, that is an increase in the number of services
operated, not trains nor seats.

In message
<aeb86883-500e-40f3-b136-0691fc200c30@27g2000hsf..com>, at
08:47:54 on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, rannochmoor@ remarked:
>As for the 45%, that is an increase in the number of services
>operated, not trains nor seats.

By Virgin, presumably.

If they were still running the XC service one could be cynical and say
that splitting certain services at Birmingham doubles their number,
without actually shifting any more passengers or covering any more
miles. To what extent has VWC done any similar 'tricks' to get this 45%
increase? Other than cutting out Nuneaton stops and such like.

(Still not sure between when and when; is it "now" and "after the new
trains are delivered"?)
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:20 +0100, Paul Corfield
<aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin doing
>the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness knows how
>much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.

But if they hadn't put the work out to tender they would have had to
accept whatever price Virgin wanted to charge.

Bevan Price wrote:

>
> 2. Will the 9 and 11 coach sets each be dedicated to specific destinations,
> or will they be allocated to any WCML route, at times to relieve the worst
> overcrowding ?
>

How many platforms at Manchester Piccadilly can take an
11-coach Pendolino?

Charlie

mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:20 +0100, Paul Corfield
> <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin doing
>> the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness knows how
>> much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.
>
> But if they hadn't put the work out to tender they would have had to
> accept whatever price Virgin wanted to charge.

Why? Surely they could have insisted on a breakdown of
the costs, and had the submission audited?

Charlie

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:03:47 +0100, Charlie Hulme
<info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:

>mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:20 +0100, Paul Corfield
>> <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>>> And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin doing
>>> the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness knows how
>>> much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.

>> But if they hadn't put the work out to tender they would have had to
>> accept whatever price Virgin wanted to charge.

>Why? Surely they could have insisted on a breakdown of
>the costs, and had the submission audited?

If the DfT had already decided against putting the job out to tender
why would Virgin agree? besides "cost plus" jobs are notorious for
the costs getting out of control.