Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Virgin 'interested' in east coast line

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 May 2009
SIR Richard Branson yesterday confirmed his Virgin Rail group would be prepared to look again at the troubled east coast main line franchise if current owner National Express walked away.
Earlier this month, the government was urged by some MPs to renationalise the line after National Express said stalling revenues on the Scotland-to-London franchise had piled pressure on the group.

At a London press conference at which he called f
or longer rail franchises of 20 to 30 years to encourage investment, Branson – whose group already operates the west coast main line – said he would be interested in the east coast route.

"For years, we have expressed an interest in the east coast main line. We could bring a lot to the east coast. We would certainly look at it," he said. "We have had dramatically exciting plans for the east coast in the past, such as building a whole new track alongside the existing track and improving the rolling stock."

National Express, which took over the east coast route from GNER in 2007 before recession struck, must pay the government £1.4 billion over the life of the franchise to 2015.

But in a bleak trading update earlier this month, it said the terms of the franchise were "agreed in a very different economic climate", and that it would not receive revenue support from the Department for Transport (DfT) – agreed as part of the deal for the franchise – until the end of 2011.

National Express said it saw underlying revenue growth on the east coast line of only 0.3 per cent in the first three months of 2009. That compared with 9 per cent growth last year.

The group said at that stage it was "in regular discussions with the DfT, which include the impact of the recession on the east coast franchise".

That has fuelled speculation about a possible exit strategy, leaving the line potentially in state hands or opening the way for another private operator.

However, it is believed Virgin Rail might face strong political and consumer opposition to any attempt to run both main north/south rail routes in Britain.

Branson, whose group unsuccessfully bid for the east coast franchise in 1997 and 2007, also called on the government yesterday to allow the private sector to plug the funding gap which is threatening the growth of the railways in return for much longer franchises.

A Glasgow-to-London time of less than four hours and a London-to-Birmingham of less than 60 minutes would be just two benefits from letting train companies play a bigger role in financing and running the railways, he said. It could also lead to linking the west coast line at its southern end with both Heathrow airport and the high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link to Europe.

"We need private vision and investment to take on the challenge that taxpayers are unable and unwilling to fund," he said.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 May 2009 8:59 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The railways , Virgin
 
1

RonsOpinion,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 10:03:02
As I wrote in a previous piece about National Express, the franchise payment of £1.4 billion over the 8 year for the east coast route equates to £175 million per year or £14.58 million per month and assuming a 30 day month, £480,000 per day.

I admit to having not even the slightest idea what it costs to operate a railway but taking my return fair of £120 or £60 for the single journey that would mean that National Express require to transport 8000 people daily just to obtain the revenues to pay the franchise cost.

This begs the question: Why does the government take £480,000 per day out of a rail company? Is this just another stealth tax or is this money ring-fenced for track and infrastructure maintenance or what is it used for? Talk about being green, this sounds more like gree(dy)! No wonder rail fares are so high in the UK.

Wouldn't a system be better where companies competed on a route and paid towards track and infrastructure based upon each journey. This would seem less expensive for the train companies and offer all the advantages to passengers that competition gives?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.