The government is to take
the East Coast rail service, run by National Express, into
public ownership.
The East Coast rail service has suffered
falling passenger numbers
The troubled rail
franchise, which is expected to have lost £20m in the first
half of the year, is suffering from slumping passenger
numbers.
Ministers have refused the company's requests for its
contract with the government to be renegotiated.
The Department for Transport said that all East Coast
services would continue and that tickets would be honoured.
Existing operational staff will transfer to the new state
company which will be set up to operate the route.
The government added it intended to put the franchise out
for tender from late next year.
'No bail-out'
National Express won the franchise from GNER in 2007.
It agreed to pay the government £1.4bn to run the East Coast
main line, which runs between Edinburgh and London, until
2015.
At the time, many rail analysts said it had paid too much
for the franchise.
Now National Express has
said it will walk away from the loss-making route after
failing to alter the terms of its agreement - a step which
prompted the government to intervene.
Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said: "The government is not
prepared to renegotiate rail franchises, because I'm simply
not prepared to bail out companies that are unable to meet
their commitments.
"It is simply unacceptable to reap the benefits of contracts
when times are good, only to walk away from them when times
become more challenging."
In a statement, the government added that it believed it had
also had grounds to end National Express's two other rail
franchises - East Anglia and c2c.
But the company said it felt the government had "no grounds"
to do this and would challenge any such attempt in court.
It added that it did not expect the any losses from the East
Coast franchise could be recouped from National Express.
Debt pile
Richard Bowker, the chief executive of National Express, has
confirmed he is to leave the firm, to become chief executive
of Union Railway in the United Arab Emirates.
In a trading statement, National Express said that the
"challenging economic environment" meant it was seeing fewer
passengers on the East Coast Mainline and "significant"
levels of people downgrading from first-class and full
fares.
The firm is trying to
reduce a debt pile of about £1.2bn. Earlier this week, rival
transport company FirstGroup said a takeover approach made
for National Express had been rejected.
Cuts have been made in dividend payouts to shareholders,
while 750 jobs have also been lost.
Last month, the company started charging passengers for
reserving a seat on its East Coast and East Anglia
franchises.
'Not right'
Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said that
National Express should not be allowed to run any other
train services.
"It doesn't seem to me right that the taxpayer should pick
up the loss from one and leave the profits from the other
two with National Express," he told the BBC.
He added that by leaving the East Coast line in public hands
would provide a comparator which would be "useful in driving
up standards across the whole industry."
The transport union, the RMT, welcomed the development and
also called for the franchise to remain in government hands
permanently.
"It should be a long-term solution to the chaos that
privatisation has brought to the UK's most lucrative rail
franchise," said RMT General Secretary Bob Crow.
When you consider that the amount of taxpayer's cash, in real terms, that has been shelled out to these private companies far outstrips the money that British Rail were given, I hope so!
A relative who works for another rail franchisee told me that her company are about to announce big redundancies so it's obviously trouble all over.
#21821 - 07/02/0902:27 AMRe: National Express rail goes into public ownership
[Re: Sheena W]
Sailor
veteran
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 1381
Loc: Nova Scotia
you have to wonder why railways were nationalised in the first place....maybe because railway companies couldn't or wouldn't provide the service needed?
Greed is never a good motive for running a service or utility, either will suffer in the long run and revenues will decline
_________________________
If you say it loud enough and often enough, it must be true.
Apart from the war years all of the rail companies ran at a substantial loss from 1919 until they were nationalised.
Though some of them only paid out a dividend twice in all that time, the shareholders and directors received big compensation (I believe it was the face value of shares that had been trading at about 10% of that) so BR actually started off with millions of pounds of debt.
Of course, the money taxpayers put into BR was "subsidising its losses" while the much larger sums going to the current private companies is "investment in infrastructure".