4 ms·

Both Virgin Trains (51% Virgin Group) and Virgin Trains East Coast (10% Virgin Group) pay large net premiums to the government (£153 million and £204 million re

Both Virgin Trains (51% Virgin Group) and Virgin Trains East Coast (10% Virgin Group) pay large net premiums to the government (£153 million and £204 million respectively). The huge government subsidies go to Network Rail, a company wholly owned by HM Government, and are never seen by any of the train operating companies (except insofar as they are indirectly subsidised given they don't pay the full cost of maintaining and improving the infrastructure).

zimpenfish 9y ago
https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-public-subsidies-fund-pay-outs-shareholders-says-tuc https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-pub... Has a total net of -£225M from Virgin in 2013/4. This shows them as still being net-subsidised: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-fin...
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Both of those are including the Network Grant; note the ORR document gives Virgin Trains East Coast as paying a net premium in 2016–7 (which I hadn't been able to find figures for before) even including the Network Grant. Note that apportioning the Network Grant based on percentage of track access charges isn't entirely fair: Virgin Trains notably pays above average per km as a result of funding agreements for the WCML Modernisation programme in the 90s/00s, and as such given the different funding agreements for different network improvements (with the shortfall mostly coming from the Network Grant since the demise of Railtrack plc) it doesn't really make sense to apportion the Network Grant in that way.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Both of those are including the Network Grant The result is that Virgin (as a whole) gets more from UKGOV than it sends back as shown in UKGOV's own figures. > isn't entirely fair You want to argue with UKGOV and their own numbers, go ahead, but it doesn't change what they currently are.
  - Retric 9y ago
    The problem is it's a separate organization spending the money. So, while you can point to cost aka actual spending it's unclear what the net benefit from that spending is.

zimpenfish 9y ago

https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-public-subsidies-fund-pay-outs-shareholders-says-tuc https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-pub... Has a total net of -£225M from Virgin in 2013/4. This shows them as still being net-subsidised: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-fin...

gsnedders 9y ago
Both of those are including the Network Grant; note the ORR document gives Virgin Trains East Coast as paying a net premium in 2016–7 (which I hadn't been able to find figures for before) even including the Network Grant. Note that apportioning the Network Grant based on percentage of track access charges isn't entirely fair: Virgin Trains notably pays above average per km as a result of funding agreements for the WCML Modernisation programme in the 90s/00s, and as such given the different funding agreements for different network improvements (with the shortfall mostly coming from the Network Grant since the demise of Railtrack plc) it doesn't really make sense to apportion the Network Grant in that way.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Both of those are including the Network Grant The result is that Virgin (as a whole) gets more from UKGOV than it sends back as shown in UKGOV's own figures. > isn't entirely fair You want to argue with UKGOV and their own numbers, go ahead, but it doesn't change what they currently are.
- Retric 9y ago
  The problem is it's a separate organization spending the money. So, while you can point to cost aka actual spending it's unclear what the net benefit from that spending is.