Talk:Virgin Trains/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trent Valley upgrade means quicker running to Birmingham?

Er... Just a point about this, isn't the Trent Valley on the more direct route (Rugby-Lichfield-Stafford)?

Why would this make a difference to EUS-BNS/WOL services? Worley-d 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

There is a lot of un-sourced material on this page. I recently removed a huge chunk, but I have noticed that there is a lot more. I will not remove this for now. Instead, I will let someone source it and tag the page. Dewarw 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arriva takes over XC route

i read on the bbc news that arriva is taking over the XC route can this be mentioned? 82.24.175.199 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I think Virgin Trains and Virgin West Coast should be merged becuase as of next month, when the cross country franchise moves to arriva, thre will only be virgin west coast e.g two articles stating the same thing. Mark999Mark999 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Virgin trains is the company and Virgin west coast is the franchise they hold. Virgin trains are still bidding for other franchises and the article includes some company information including past franchises and future possibilities and so I think it is better to keep them separate. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Support The Virgin West Coast article is hardly encyclopaedic. Canterberry 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - for now at least. VWC is still very usefull all the time VXC is still about. even then VXC will still exist as an article about the defunt TOC (liek connex south cnetral, thames trians, etc). Thus "Virgin trains" article provides the overarching view for Brandson's train ambitons (eg the two ECML bids), while VWC will be his only active frnachice, and VXC the defunt one. Thats not to say the 3 articles are prefect and could do with work, pruning and co-ordination. Pickle 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - VXC is an important part of the Virgin Trains and the British TOC scene. The only logical way forward would be merge the article with VWC and VXC which could produce a very unwieldly article. Remember an encycolpedia includes historical information and well as current information. --Stewart ^(talk) 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Quality

The article reads like an anoraked anti-privatisation, anti-Virgin trainspotter has sat behind his computer and written a long derogatory piece whilst waiting for his photos to upload to Fotopic. I'm sorry but such comments as "Given Richard Branson’s personal popularity with much of the British public and the high-profile success of some of his other business ventures such as the Virgin Atlantic airline, the relative failure of Virgin Trains may appear unusual (but might perhaps be considered alongside Virgin Cola and Virgin Vodka, both brands launched in a blaze of publicity, but have now largely disappeared)." are hugely exaggerated. Virgin Trains a failure? Before making such wild statments, it would be necessary to start looking at what Virgin did to improve things - and there are plenty of things. Would platform 4 at Wolverhampton, for example, ever have been built under British Rail?

Ridiculous Worley-d 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC) what have virgin trains got to do with plat 4 at wolves it was paid for by railtrack as a turn back platform for pendolinos but as per usual that did not work the platform and buildings are shabby and not well built look at the ceiling the auto doors do not work and the lift when it worksdoes not hold many people but the over bridge is truly a remarkable landmark asit can be seen over 4 miles away at thetop of the cannock road the platform is so useful that for half of the day its empty and the pendolinos turn back off plat 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.135.193 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Cross Country Information

I do not think that that removal of the Cross Country information is appropriate. Yes - VXC no longer operate any trains (as of today), however the historical information is still encyclopedic. I suggest that a section is created cover the Cross Country era. --Stewart ^(talk) 09:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's still encyclopaedic, but only up to a point. A lot of that sort of information stops being as notable when it's out of date. I think it would be better to have all the historical information in the Virgin Cross Country, which can now be written from a more historical perspective, leaving this article as primarily about the current operator. --RFBailey 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I think this is a good way forward as the historical information is not getting lost. --Stewart ^(talk) 06:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've begun a temporary Virgin Cross Country article in my userspace at User:RFBailey/VXC. It's nowhere near ready yet, but any thoughts would be appreciated. --RFBailey 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I implemented the new article yesterday. It still needs some work though (and plenty of references!). --RFBailey (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have 3 problems with the "2008" section

1. It is totally unsourced- it all be tosh!
2. How will Virgin have enough rolling stock to do this timetable. It seems like frequencies have been vastly increased.
3. I wish that they would get electric units for the New Street to Glasgow route- a bit of a waste of the electric power lines to me (time and money spent in the 60s)!

Thanks, Dewarw (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your three points: (1) try this, for instance, or this; (2) not clear, but presumably reduced journey times will help increase frequencies; (3) true, but that's not a problem with the article, is it? --RFBailey (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok: In response- (1) Thanks for finding the sources. I will now include them in the article!!!! (2) In the pdf. source you provided me, it seems that some of the services to/from Lancaster/Birmingham will be operated by Voyagers instead of Pendalinos. As well as this, there will be no "Thunderbird" hauled train on the North Wales Coast- all will be by Voyagers. Services to North Wales will be double Voyagers as far as Crewe, where they'll split, one unit going up the WCML. Therefore, Virgin will overcome stock problems by using Voyagers on electrified routes! (3) True it is not a problem, but I thought that someone might have a source showing that Virgin were thinking of ordering more EMUs- obviously they are not.

Thanks again for finding the sources, Dewarw (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the 'diesels under the wires', only two return services per day (IIRC) were operated along the North Wales Coast Line by a Thunderbird/Pendolino, the others were Voyagers already. I've read somewhere online that some Voyagers were/are being transferred back to Virgin from CrossCountry to give them enough rolling stock to operate the new timetable.

On point 3 (WP:CRYSTAL aside): this may well happen when the next wave of Pendolinos are built. Virgin may even get rid of a lot of their Voyagers in the future: now that the WCML modernisation works (and the associated diversionary routes) are finished, they only really need the diesel capability for the North Wales Coast Line. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

virgin trains

with the advent of vhf or very high frequency every piece of rolling stock will need to be used and if you take into account failure rates of pendolino's and engine failures of 221's and the constant failures of the infrastructure this is operation princess all over again use the hose pipe principle you can only get a measured amount of water through a given diameter of pipe after that something has to give —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.135.193 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How true. But please note that this is for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a general discussion of the article's subject. --RFBailey (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

POV edit

This edit to the 'From December 2008' section is quite POV in my opinion - talking of worst-affected stations and speculating on what 'remains to be seen', so I'm going to revert it again. Any thoughts? JCzech (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are factual inaccuracies in the previous text and a heavy pro-VHF POV suggesting that affected stations have a suitable replacement. The old text describes the London Midland service as semi-fast, when in fact it's a very slow service north of Rugby. It doesn't make clear that the new service is by a more convoluted route, not direct. It also gives the impression that Virgin Trains will continue to stop at Midlands stations in peak hours without clarifying that this is in one direction only, i.e. no stops northbound in the morning. Suggesting the new LM service "fills the gaps" and facilitates "good connections" is, at best, very biased and, at worst, plain wrong, depending on your journey needs. There is also an addition highlighting the most revolutionary affect of Virgin's VHF timetable in the grand scheme of things, namely the loss of strategic interchange points. So I have unreverted again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.98.74 (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the word "worst" to "affected stations" was done innocently, as I felt it implicit in the original text. That said, it can be justified based on number of Virgin services lost, so I will source a link to the necessary data. "Remains to be seen" is justified as there is much divided opinion as to what the consequences will actually be, and this was an attempt to be impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.98.74 (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure how it is biased User 195.33.98.74! I wrote the section about the LM Desiro service:

• It is semi fast because it does not call at all stations.
• It does fill the gaps, because it is a new service which will compensate for the loss of Virgin Trains' stops.
• I am sure that LM will operate a Northbound service during peak hours.
• Yes, it does go via a un-direct route - but it is not an express! It will be electric, and will reach 100 mph for most of the journey, and will miss out local stations.
• You point out that it services most/all stations North of Rugby. That is because there are no "local stations" left for it to miss out (Beeching shut them down).

However, the section you wrote is biased!! It is full of your POV. How do you know it will be difficult for Nuneton passengers to travel by rail? I would have thought that catching a LM/XC service to either Rugby, Stafford, Crewe or B'ham New Street would be quite easy and provide connexions to most destinations! In fact, compared to my local station, Nuneton will be in a far better situation! It will also have a all day service to London, which will be quite rapid.

There is my POV, let's rewrite the article to be neutral. I would also like to remind you not to keep reverting (don't break the three-revert-rule). It can be regarded as vandalism.

Regards, Btline (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole article is pretty awful for all sorts of reasons. Late last year I had a go at drafting a new version pretty much from scratch, but never got very far, I'm afraid: see User:RFBailey/VT. Perhaps it's time to have another go at that. --RFBailey (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - taking a overlook, the article is too long and full of unsourced and irrelevant material. I say we should use your draft. Or we could get a GA assessment done to see what needs doing...... Btline (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update I have given the article a thorough prune. I have removed train times, outdated speculation, trivia, POV, unsourced material etc. I hope that I have not been too severe. Btline (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Err.... is the LM semi-fast service really supposed to call at Norton Bridge? I thought that station was fairly permanently closed now, even without them having gone through the closure procedures by virtue of there being no public access to the platform, since they knocked down the overbridge. At least, I haven't noticed that they've put up a new bridge when I passed through recently. -- Arwel (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - the service won't call here. Btline (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Btline's statements above: the LM service is not semi-fast between Rugby and Crewe. It stops at Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield TV, Rugeley, Stafford, Stone, Stoke, Kidsgrove and Alsager. If that's not a slow service, I don't know what is. Nuneaton to Crewe (61 miles & 40 minutes by Virgin) will take 81 minutes by LM. To say that this is a compensatory service and fills the gaps defies logic and is very much a POV. It's not a POV to state that journey times for passengers originating in or interchanging in the affected stations will increase significantly. Liverpool-Leicester for example will take nearly an hour longer via Birmingam rather than Nuneaton. The VHF timetable brings about a fundamental change to the services available to passengers in the Midlands or connecting in the Midlands, and it's right and proper for the article to reflect that without taking a position on the rights and wrongs of it.

Regarding the reminder about reverting, I was trying to make a fair (imho) change stick. Others were doing the reverting back to the previous version. Some people seem to be overly possessive of the text they have written. It also doesn't help when people adopt the "toys out of the pram" attitude by saying, if we can't agree, I'll just go through and delete lots of content. The more constructive approach is to expand upon POV content recognising that conflicting opinions exist. The VHF timetable is hugely controversial, so for the article not to reflect that is, of itself, another inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.98.74 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My savage cuts in the article was actually to mainly remove the junk that had been built up. I have consulted the timetable and aknolwedge that the LM service is much slower than the Virgin service.

I also agree that the new VT timetable is controversial - cuts to local services in Manchester and B'ham mainly. I have added this, citing reliable sources - just don't go over the top and clog up the article, which I have got down to a manageable size. Btline (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see another useful and factual contribution (not by me I hasten to add) has been undone by btline. I am starting to wonder what vested interests are operating here. I am not allowed to point out the significance of the loss of an the most heavily used interchange point between Watord and Crewe; I can't say that the LM service goes via Stafford, i.e. past the Stoke turn-off, before cutting back across to Stoke -- a much longer route than going direct to Stoke as is currently implied; and we have misspellings of Lichfield, and claims of stopping at Barleston and Wedgewood, and the article is full of jargon rather than plain English. Anyone visiting this article to get an independent description of what to expect when travelling with Virgin Trains would find pretty much no useful information. The B-quality rating is starting to look generous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.206.90 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This isn't the place to get an "independent description of what to expect when travelling with Virgin Trains". This isn't a rail magazine, it's an encyclopaedia. I have deleted the 'cuts and compensation' section as it was merely personal commentary and unencyclopaedic. There is probably too much ephemeral timetable detail in this article and it should be trimmed. (Contrary to what you think, that will help improve the article's rating.) DrFrench (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since an "encyclopaedia" is simply a collection of knowledge, then anything factual that is on-topic merits inclusion. Outlining the diverging opinions on a controversial subject, done in an objective manner, is also of merit. Why should detailing the engine types used by VT be included, but VT's pioneering approaches to marketing, ticketing, on-board service, frequent traveller schemes, etc. be ignored. In fact, this article reads more like a trainspotter's magazine than an encylopaedic entry.

The VHF timetable marks a radical change to the way the UK government views public transport -- the DfT have said as much in letters I've seen. It's a seismic shift away from providing rail services based on demand (and, to a lesser degree, public service remit), to providing those services that produce the most revenue and therefore least government subsidy, regardless of environmental impact. (So, for example, passengers travelling from London-Warrington count for more than those travelling from Rugby to Manchester, because the former generate greater revenue, regardless of the fact that the latter are more likely to be displaced to road travel by slower services.) No doubt, some will disagree with that take. Not to even discuss the arguments about the effects of the new timetable, either in the VT article, or in a separate Wikipedia entry, takes away from our collective knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.206.90 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Whatever you might feel an encyclopaedia is (and I'm not sure why you put it in quotes, it seems to imply that you feel Wikipedia isn't an encyclopaedia), Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines, which are encompassed in the five pillars. Have a read, you will soon see that this isn't the place for content that is original research. As for the approach to marketing, ticketing etc that has been taken by Virgin Trains, yes - this article can quite easily accommodate that information - where it is notable, verifiable and written in a neutral point-of-view. (PS Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~.) DrFrench (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr French's view, but have briefly re-added two lines which have sources, and are fair in my view. To the anon user, you can't put in that amount of detail - it makes the article difficult to read and generally bogs it down. Your edits were also POV, I have added neutral statements with sources. Btline (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, I note that the removed section about the Trent Valley now has a third-party source in the media Divy (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham to Glasgow/ Edinburgh to be operated by Voyagers?

Is this correct? The line is totally electrified, so surely Virgin West Coast will use Pendolinos, or at least Desiros! Dewarw 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its raised my eyeborws, but i image they lack the the spare Pendolinos, and there aren't any trainpaths for low speed stock (all emu's like desiros) so voyagers it is (OK so you could get old class 86, 87, etc locos or even class 67s) - unless they are running through manchester which isn't electrifed north of picadilly (that would make senss). Pickle 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical! I suppose. I read somewhere that it is actually cheaper to operate diesel trains at the moment (cheaper fuel than the electricity from the wires). That would explain why so many lines which need electrification are not being electrified (cross country, Manchester-Bolton-Preston etc). In my opinion it is a waste of fuel which could be put to better use! And what happens when we start running out of fuel- fuel price rises- most of the network diesel- I sense future "fare hyper-inflation!!" Dewarw 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, it is quite bizarre that the only electric trains that Virgin have are the fast express Pendalinos; it is over-consolidation of the fleet IMO when they have to use diesel trains for long distance shorter trains as they've stripped their entire fleet down to only two classes. You would have thought they'd have kept a 'commuter' electric-based train as well if they're going to be running 'under the wires' the whole time; calling it a waste of fuel is more than fair. None of this is mentionable in the article, and I suppose we should keep ourselves from passing commentry in this manner, but it seems bizarre compared to the strategies deployed by the other big TOCs, which have more varied fleets to cover more roles. The Class 90 is mostly free for use, so there are certainly trains going spare to use. Odd. Kyteto (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was the DfT that allocated the Super Voyagers to Virgin Trains when they lost XC so they didn't have a choice? I always understood that the thought is that the 90s + DVT cannot keep to Pendolino/Super Voyager timings which is why the current "Pretendolino" set (or Cargo-D set) is only ever seen replacing Pendolinos on the Euston-Birmingham New Street route (and the Fridays only Euston-Preston service is retimed accordingly)? Even when the new Pendolinos come, there are currently only going to be 4 new sets so this is presumably to compliment the existing fleet of 52 rather than replace Super Voyagers. I assume the lack of Pendolino sets is why Super Voyagers do the Euston-Holyhead/Wrexham services (also to avoid the Thunderbird tow north of Chester). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezertronic (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

True enough, the class 90 is a little overloaded at Pendolino length, but the DfT would be more than happy to release the class 90s to anybody at this point, rather than leaving them to rot for another half a decade or more. They'd probably do well at 4-6 carriage trains. Many the Super-Voyager routes are done so because they're partly off the electrified lines, but using them on the wider length of the WCML is a bizarre use of resources. Kyteto (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Past" section

I have recently been trimming the article down. I have yet to do the "Past" section. Would others suggest which lines need to be binned? It currently has a lot of un-sourced material, and POVs - not to mention original research. Thanks for any help, Btline (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS The performance section is also suspect. Too many figures bog the article down. Btline (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam links

This page is under attack by users who are posting "spa

m" links. How can this be stopped? Btline (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a word with the owner of the site that keeps getting posted and advise him that Wikipedia is no place to air his personal issues with Virgin Trains? His name can easily be found by performing a Whois against the domain name. I also notice that the same range of IP addresses keep popping up and ironically they belong to Virgin Media :) Geezertronic (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny the links that show anything negative with regards to virgin's illegal ticket policy - (they finally admitted they were wrong after an intervention by an MP) keep getting taken down. As we know with the likes of Bell Pottinger etc - Wiki is subject to employees of virgin and other interested parties such as their media / PR company removing negative stories or links such as http://www.virgintrains.org.uk/ which are clearly relevant and clearly show a genuine dispute with the virgin company and how the dispute panned out - the complainant prevailed and virgin admitted it was wrong.

Perhaps virgin employees should concentrate on giving better customer service instead of removing links that shed light on their shortcomings.

A frequent traveller asks

I know nothing about the ins and outs of networks, timetables and rolling stocks, etc. but as a frequent user of Virgin West Coast between London and Carlisle, is there a place to mention the the useless booking system; cramped, claustrophobic carriages; abysmal lack of luggage storage; dangerous overcrowding; the air conditioning that, when it isn't blasting cold air and hot air simultaneously is either too hot or too cold or not working at all; the frequently inoperative, malodorous and badly serviced lavatories; the non-functioning hot water facilities in The Shop; the badly trained and poorly motivated on-train and platform staff (getting a little better, when they can be found)..? Ah, that about sums it up.

Example: last trip I booked a seat with socket at table in Quiet Coach A, I discovered I had been allotted airline seat (ha!) in Coach C. I found an unreserved table seat in Coach A but had to move just before departure when a couple turned up with reservations. Second time this has happened in a row (Not once in the last year have I been alloted the type of seat requested).

Remonstrated with manager who suggested the couple could have been lying, "Had I checked their tickets?" and it wasn't an issue to take up with her. Later found we were running 20 minutes late with nothing said and my connection tight.

On return trip found the Shop had no hot drinks. I asked, out of curiousity, how many trains on a given day had all facilities working. I was told "Well, there are X trains in the fleet, this is just one." No, I didn't get it either. Then for a clincher he said, "Anyway, it's only been out of action for two days..."

And while I'm at it, who is responsible for the policy of announcing of a departure platform 10 minutes before departure then instituting a ticket check at the gate? Not only is the ensuing stampede degrading and stressful but the check is illogical when frequently the 'Train Manager' is then not seen during the whole journey.

I have to go up again on Monday. As usual I dread it.

WHO CAN I TALK TO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A Virgin employee, I take it? JF42 (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)JF42

Try speaking to Passenger Focus. However, in answer to some of your comments (and for the record I have NO ties with Virgin or any other rail company):

1. The trains may seem cramped due to the small windows, but this makes them very safe in the event of a crash. The Grayrigg derailment a few years ago is a good example.

2. The number of people using the railways has increased massively over the past few years and there simply aren't enough trains available to cope with demand. That's why we're still using trains that are 30-40 years old in some places. Virgin have got more Pendelinos on order, and they are due to add 2 extra coaches to their existing trains, but they're still being built. Same goes for many other companies.

In any case, this isn't a discussion forum for what Virgin can and can't do right, it's supposed to be a discussion about the Wikipedia article concerning them. If you can cite reliable sources for criticisms of Virgin, then they would be a welcome addition to the article. NRTurner (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Future / Future Fleet / 2012 Franchise

Someone has just added a ==Future Fleet== subsection substantially duplicating information already in ==The Future==. Both of these refer to activities for the next franchise holder from 2012, not necessarily Virgin Trains. I haven't checked the West Coast article, but I think it more correctly belongs there. If it stays here, there needs to be a big note that the DfT don't want Virgin to ever get their hands on the new Pendolino stock, but that may be a bit too political for the article. Tim PF (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a very high chance that Virgin will get the new franchise. After all, they have met all their targets, and are clearly the most determined bidder for the new franchise. Because of this, and since they own the current franchise, it is more appropriate to have the "future" section in this article.

The WCML article refers mainly to the actual tracks, infrastructure, geography, and rolling stock of the WCML, rather than the franchise holders who run services on the line. It would not be appropriate to move the section there. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the information fits here for now. Should Virgin not win the new franchise, the information would need to be moved to the page for the new franchisee. NRTurner (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair comments, but the information is was still duplicated, and a couple of recent edits had further added to the duplication (and confusion - 31 or all sets lengthened?). I've now deleted the ===Future fleet=== section (incorporating the new info into ==The future== section); I don't think the loss of its table is great since it used a different layout to that in ===Current fleet===. Tim PF (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Milton Keynes Central sparsely served by peak-time West Coast services in order to deter commuters

While there are a number of criticisms one could make about the Virgin west coast services, the reference to Milton Keynes Central being sparsely served is factually incorrect. I travel several times a week between Euston and MK and there is a good service with - e.g. 7 services between 7 and 9am or 8 between 6.30 and 8.30 pm. 207.218.21.5 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't well worded - I have corrected it. The point is that Virgin Trains don't run many services between MKC and Euston at peak times - there are no outward services between 7:15am and 9:15am, and no return services between 15:45pm and 18:30pm. The frequent services you refer to are operated by London Midland. However, the criticism applies to Virgin, not London Midland. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

However, I never inserted the statement myself, and would consider removing it for two reasons. A: There is no reference, and it is extremely difficult to find one. B: I'm not sure if this is even a criticism. London Midland services between MKC and Euston are almost as fast as Virgin services, and, even though VT removed almost all their services a few years ago, MKC is still served very frequently by LM. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism I have read in the railway press wasn't about MK to London, it was about going north from MK to e.g. the north of England and v.v., which (so runs the complaint) now takes a lot longer and involves changes of train. The same criticism applies to Nuneaton, I believe, compared with the situation before the Virgin timetable revamp, and possibly other places too. -- Alarics (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the criticism is entirely false. Virgin services from North Wales, Birmingham, and Manchester serve MKC.

During the morning peak, only VT services towards London (ie. the commuter flow) don't stop at MKC. However, all services from London Euston in the morning peak towards Manchester, Birmingham, and North Wales do stop at MKC to pick up passengers.

In the evening peak, all VT services from London do stop at MKC, but only to pick up passengers. This deters people from using VT services in the evening peak to commute between London and Milton Keynes, but still allows people to take trains from MKC to Manchester, Birmingham, and North Wales.

Since the criticism is unfounded, I have deleted it. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Customer service

http://www.virgintrains.org.uk/ is a dedicated website which describes the negative experiences of travelers using virgin trains. Like other companies such as airlines, 'customer feedback' sites have been established by the customers themselves to give their side of the story. The dirty tricks by certain companies who are upset at critical experiences being published on the net include editing wikipedia entries and removing them - a well known action by companies and their media staff. http://www.virgintrains.org.uk/ however cannot be hacked into by virgin so is probably the best place to go to see the customers' side that wasn't as great as virgin likes to make out their service is.

There may well be dirty tricks, but this wasn't one of them. I have no connection with Virgin Trains, or anyone else for that matter, but I deleted your addition because it was expressed in a POV and non-encyclopaedic way. -- Alarics (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)