Talk:InterCity West Coast

First West Coast
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)

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



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


 * Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the undiscussed removal of the InterCity West Coast content based on the above citations. —Sladen (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 from a seven-day podcast on the BBC site, and then secondly 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 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)

Naming the 3 civil servants and BLP rules
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)


 * ✅ Sounds very reasonable. nb. the removal edit was . I've shortened the  from this Talk: page too . —Sladen (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

status of the latest extension
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)

Cancellation details
The cancellation details just got culled; 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)

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, leading to a too low default surety being required of bidders.

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. Three civil servants were also suspended.

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: 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 …

At around 19:30 on 2 October 2012 Branson was warned to expect a call later that evening from McLoughlin. At 22:00 McLoughlin called Tim O'Toole of FirstGroup who was in Philadelphia and about to travel back to London. At 23:30 Patrick McLoughlin spoke with Richard Branson, who was in New York City at the time, followed by Brian Souter of Stagecoach. Thirty minutes after speaking with Branson, the cancellation press release was issued by the Department of Transport at 00:01 on 3 October 2012. 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.

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. 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. It was announced on 6 December 2012 that all three of the suspended civil servants, including Mingay, would return to work.

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

WP:Not a guide ...but?
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)
 * "If you want anything doing, you have to do it yourself." So I have. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606091753/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/ojeunotice.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/ojeunotice.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606091753/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/ojeunotice.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/ojeunotice.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606094818/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/franchisebidders.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/franchisebidders.pdf

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

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

Page Split for new WCP franchise?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)