As a
PR professional from my view Virgin are handling this magnificently, they communicated early, openly and honestly. Initialy through local managment and the press team, then via senior managment and now Sir Richard.
Sir Richard returned from holiday, went to see the injured (sans TV), and has delivered an outstanding briefing - sympathetic, honest and not overly commercial. Yet he still managing to deliver at least three repetitions of the message that the pendelino trains are safe for example, "built like a tank" "we spent more than required by law on safety" and adding factual support with comments like "most of the carriages are intact, the glass stayed in and the lights stayed on". He also avoided questions on legal action saying that the emphasis needed to be on prevention.
I expect Virgin have implemented a crisis comms plan, as well as just reacting as their organisational culture would lead them to - a train company not planning an outline response to a serious incident like this would be unusual today.
Contrast Virgins response to that of Bernard Matthews and his eponymous turkey empire - I did not see him interviewed at all in spite of the potential seriousness of the situation.
I do think the military can learn from commerical crisis management, but aside from the obvious operational security concerns the constraint of having spokes people who do not have ultimate responsibility as Sir Richard does is a significant barrier to delivering this sort of open and believeable communication.
I can't see the Defence Secretary open mike at the scene of an accident and saying that he will do what is necessary to prevent this happening again irrespective of what the treasury says. And even if he did, we would not believe him, his brand is not at stake, his pension is secure and history is not on his side.