Talk:InterCity West Coast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First West Coast[edit]

I redirected First West Coast back to here following the 3 October announcement. There was little substantive difference between the articles, and any further article development could take place here. MRSC (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh sources[edit]

Article I've dug up (since yesterday) with fresh content that aren't just recycled from DfT/Virgin/First's press releases:

  • Osborne, Alistair (3 October 2012). "West Coast Main Line: total chaos as government scraps franchise deal". The Telegraphy. London. Retrieved 4 October 2012. Sir Richard Branson was looking out across the Hudson river from in his room on the 17th floor of New York's Standard hotel. … The Virgin founder had been put on alert, four hours earlier, to expect a call at 11.30pm London time. It would be from Patrick McLoughlin, Britain's new Transport Secretary … three officials have been suspended. The DfT won't say who, … all responsible for procurement.
  • "West Coast Main Line franchise process a 'fiasco' says Branson" (in-page video interview). BBC News Online. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012. [Tim O'Toole] I received a call [at] 10 o'clock last night informing me of the decision
  • BBC Online. Podcast. 3 October 2012 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/today/today_20121003-1158a.mp3. Retrieved 4 October 2012. [Patrick McLoughlin] I arrived in the department just under four weeks ago, I was told at that stage there might be some technical points; it became more serious as time went on—when I saw the full extent of the advice that I got yesterday afternoon, I took the decisions which I've taken and put the whole process on pause so we can learn the lessons and see what went wrong in this particular area … {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • McLoughlin, Patrick (3 October 2012 07:55:51–07:56:12 BST). "Today" (Interview). Interviewed by Sarah Montague. [Patrick McLoughlin] I arrived in the department just under four weeks ago, I was told at that stage there might be some technical points; it became more serious as time went on—when I saw the full extent of the advice that I got yesterday afternoon, I took the decisions which I've taken and put the whole process on pause so we can learn the lessons and see what went wrong in this particular area … {{cite interview}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)

—Sladen (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, I've reverted[1] the undiscussed removal[2] of the InterCity West Coast#Timeline content based on the above citations. —Sladen (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quote that starts "I arrived in the department just under four weeks ago..." appears three times (once in article, twice in references). Do we need it repeated? MRSC (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to shorten/note that it is the same quote. As can (hopefully) be seen from this Talk page history history; this is down to progressively tracking down the quote; first[3] from a seven-day podcast on the BBC site, and then secondly[4] from an archive recording of the three-hour-long Today programme. Then, after having been prepared here (on the talk page), these citations were transferred/copied verbatim[5] on the article page itself. Given the significance of what McLoughlin is saying (that he was made somewhat aware of issue upon joining the DfT a month earlier) it seems prudent to have made efforts to source that to the second and clearly represent it for the avoidance of doubt or misrepresentation. —Sladen (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the 3 civil servants and BLP rules[edit]

The article names the 3 civil servants suspended in a cite quote (cite [23]). I believe this is contrary to WP:BLP, and will remove it for the following reasons, unless anyone has good contrary arguments:

  • the newspaper source is not definitive on the names, merely "there is industry gossip the trio are X,Y,Z"
  • the names are not relevant to the article body, the cite is not diminished by removing names from the quoue
  • the Daily Telegraph removed one of the three names from the online version, presumably after legal representations it accepted
  • WP:BLPNAME says:
    • "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed ... it is often preferable to omit it."
    • "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories"
  • "WP:BLP elsewhere says:
    • there is a "Presumption in favor of privacy"
    • People who are relatively unknown: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care ... and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

So overall I don't think these civil servants should be named now - possibly later if they are named and criticised in the investigation report. Rwendland (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sounds very reasonable. nb. the removal edit was [6]. I've shortened the {{cite}} from this Talk: page too [7]. —Sladen (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

status of the latest extension[edit]

The article seems slightly confused/contradictory about whether the lastest extension is an extension of the management agreement or a return to a more normal franchise arrangement. The linked source doesn't seem to give any clarity on the matter either. Anyone know the details? Plugwash (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation details[edit]

The cancellation details just got culled[8]; here's how it stood beforehand. Perhaps there is a solution that allows streamlining without losing all the extra references? —Sladen (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

On 3 October 2012 the government announced it was cancelling the franchise competition after discovering significant technical flaws in the bidding process, cancelling the decision to award it to FirstGroup. The entire bidding process is to be re-run after the government admitted getting its figures seriously wrong. It was stated that civil servants had made significant mistakes in the way in which the risks for each bid had been calculated,[1] leading to a too low default surety being required of bidders.[2]

Two independent inquiries were announced; one headed up by Sam Laidlaw of Centrica, with Ed Smith, both from the Board of the Department for Transport; and the second headed up by Richard Brown of Eurostar.[3] Three civil servants were also suspended.[4][5]

During September 2012 the newly appointed Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, had been warned of potential issues. During the afternoon of 2 October 2012, McLoughlin took the decision to cancel the franchise award:

At around 19:30 on 2 October 2012 Branson was warned to expect a call later that evening from McLoughlin.[4] At 22:00 McLoughlin called Tim O'Toole of FirstGroup[7] who was in Philadelphia and about to travel back to London.[8] At 23:30 Patrick McLoughlin spoke with Richard Branson, who was in New York City at the time,[4] followed by Brian Souter of Stagecoach.[8] Thirty minutes after speaking with Branson, the cancellation press release was issued by the Department of Transport at 00:01 on 3 October 2012.[5][9] The Department of Transport had been due to submit their defence evidence to the High Court on 3 October 2012 in response to a Judicial Review sought by Virgin Trains. O'Toole and McLoughlin met at midday on 3 October 2012.[8]

On 5 October 2012, one of the three suspended civil servants, Kate Mingay, released a statement to correct the reporting of her role in the franchising process.[10][11] Mingay began legal proceedings against the Department for Transport over her suspension, with a High Court hearing on 29 November 2012 rejecting her claim to have her suspension lifted.[12] It was announced on 6 December 2012 that all three of the suspended civil servants, including Mingay, would return to work.[13]

On 8 October 2012 it was reported that the Department for Transport had advised Virgin (through their lawyers) that three options were being considered:[14]

  • hand over to Directly Operated Railways on 9 December 2012
  • management contract for Virgin Trains until Department for Transport is ready to hold a fresh bid, when the franchise would transfer to Directly Operated Railways
  • management contract for Virgin Trains until Department for Transport is ready to hand over the franchise to the new operator, likely to be 18–24 months

The government decided it would reimburse the four bidders for all costs incurred. This amounted to £39.7 million with a further £4.9 million paid to FirstGroup as reimbursement for mobilisation costs incurred.[15]

  1. ^ "West Coast Main Line franchise competition cancelled" (Press release). Department for Transport. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ft-20121003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Trotman, Andrew (3 October 2012). "Government cancels West Coast Mainline contract due to 'flaws' in bidding process". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
  4. ^ a b c Osborne, Alistair (3 October 2012). "West Coast Main Line: total chaos as government scraps franchise deal". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 October 2012. Sir Richard Branson was looking out across the Hudson river from in his room on the 17th floor of New York's Standard hotel. … The Virgin founder had been put on alert, four hours earlier, to expect a call at 11.30pm London time. It would be from Patrick McLoughlin, Britain's new Transport Secretary … three officials have been suspended.
  5. ^ a b Massey, Ray; Roberts, Hannah (3 October 2012). "Three civil servants suspended after government is forced to rerun bidding process for West Coast rail route because it got its sums wrong". Retrieved 7 October 2012. The news of the humiliating U-turn was sneaked out at one minute after midnight.
  6. ^ McLoughlin, Patrick (3 October 2012). "Today" (Interview). Interviewed by Sarah Montague. {{cite interview}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)
    "Today" (originally broadcast on The Today Programme, offset 5:14–5:35). BBC Online. Podcast. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  7. ^ "West Coast Main Line franchise process a 'fiasco' says Branson" (in-page video interview). BBC News Online. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012. [Tim O'Toole] I received a call [at] 10 o'clock last night informing me of the decision
  8. ^ a b c Osborne, Alistair (6 October 2012). "West Coast Main Line: scrapped bid reveals chaos at the heart of government". The Independent. Retrieved 7 October 2012.
  9. ^ Hutton, Will (7 October 2012). "This railway fiasco reveals all that's wrong with the Tories". The Observer. Retrieved 7 October 2012. Ministers, releasing the news at midnight to set the terms of the news story
  10. ^ Topham, Gwyn (5 October 2012). "West coast mainline row: civil servant hits out at Department for Transport". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
  11. ^ Massey, Ray; Mcdermott, Nick (5 October 2012). "Suspended director blows cover in protest over West Coast franchise fiasco saying she had no responsibility over finances". Daily Mail. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
  12. ^ Osbourne, Alistair (29 November 2012). "West Coast rail: Kate Mingay accuses Government of making her a 'public sacrifice'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 30 November 2012.
  13. ^ "West Coast Mainline deal failure criticised". BBC News. 6 December 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  14. ^ Osborne, Alistair (8 October 2012). "West Coast rail franchise options pose threat to Virgin". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 16 October 2012.
  15. ^ Annual Report 31 March 2013 page 186 Department for Transport

WP:Not a guide ...but?[edit]

I know the precise details of which stations are served by which trains at which times is contrary to WP:Not a guide but it does seem odd to me that we don't at least list them by route and subroute? An RDT has been suggested at talk:West Coast Main Line but I'm not sure how well that would cope with all the side branches? The Virgin route leaflet would be a good guide. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want anything doing, you have to do it yourself." So I have. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on InterCity West Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Split for new WCP franchise?[edit]

West Coast Partnership is a new franchise, rather than a new award of the old ICWC franchise. It therefore seems appropriate to split WCP off onto a new page, rather than leave it as a heading within ICWC. I will do so, unless anyone thinks of a reason why not. Spookster67 (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current article seems quite a mess and confusing. Think it's a good idea if it can be split into West Coast (1997-2019) and West Coast Partnership. --Fourthbus Talk 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Think it should be split into InterCity West Coast And West Coast Partnership as they are two separate franchises one replaced the other, so I think its a sensible suggestion. User:MainLine45 (User talk:MainLine45) 10:22 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Kloncoop (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:InterCity_West_Coast&oldid=1202970009"