Virgin Trains granted track access for international services by ORR

[Warrior2852]

The ORR has put out a press release announcing that they have given Virgin track access for up to 20 international return services a day from 1st October 2030 to 31st December 2040.

Green light for Virgin Trains international services | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR), the rail regulator, has today announced that on 13 August it decided to pre-approve a new framework track access agreement between HS1 Limited (trading as London St. Pancras Highspeed) and VTE OPCO Limited (Virgin Trains). The agreement will allow Virgin Trains to operate up to 20 new daily return services between London and Paris, Brussels or Amsterdam from 1 October 2030 to 31 December 2040.

The agreement is a significant step forward in bringing competition to the market for international rail services, supporting economic growth and providing significant benefits for passengers travelling between London and continental Europe.

Virgin Trains and London St Pancras High Speed may now enter into the agreement by 4 September 2026.

There are a number of steps before the new services will be able to run. Virgin Trains must also procure rolling stock, secure access to other rail networks, and obtain safety approvals from ORR and the relevant authorities in the EU. Virgin Trains plans to begin running services in 2030.

Martin Jones, deputy director, access & international, said:

“This is an important next step in bringing competition and growth to the market for international rail services, and we welcome the progress Virgin Trains and London St Pancras High Speed have made. While there is still more work to do, we are supporting Virgin and the wider industry to grow international services.”

 

[speedy1]

Fantastic news!

 

[zwk500]

Has Virgin or anybody else publicly stated whether they have/are close to securing access to LGV Nord?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They still need to get access approval from the Eurotunnel and continental regulators.
With Trenitalia France bidding for access too, along with incumbent Eurostar, this might not be straightforward, especially for slots at Paris Gare du Nord.
If cross-channel capacity is trebled with these applications, can the market bear it and make it pay (ie no subsidy)?
Presumably the trains themselves will be able to run on other high speed routes, and be both TVM and ETCS compatible.

 

[LLivery]

The decision letter is interesting.

A feeling Virgin have been favoured, particularly here (page 3):

11. A number of consultees objected to the proposal. The key concerns raised in the consultation were

a) Fairness and transparency of LSPH’s processes. This concern underpins many of the objections raised by EIL, TF and Gemini, all of whom assert that VTE was effectively afforded a privileged opportunity to secure long-term rights before other operators had a realistic chance to compete for the same capacity. The assertions focus on the absence of a clear process by LSPH for allocating capacity beyond 2030, the lack of a simultaneous bidding opportunity for competing operators, limited publication of decision-making criteria, inconsistent treatment of VTE compared with EIL’s earlier requests, and a failure to consider the aspirations of other operators seeking market entry.

b) Effective reservation of capacity prior to ORR approval. A distinct issue emerging from the further consultation process is whether the submission of the VTE Form P has been treated as creating an effective reservation of capacity before ORR has approved the FTAA.

c) Long-term reservation of capacity and the impact on competition. EIL, Gemini, SNCF Réseau and others questioned whether it is appropriate to grant VTE rights extending past 2030 at a time when EIL is expected to expand and several operators are seeking entry into the market.

d) Intention and ability to use. Some consultees questioned whether VTE has sufficiently demonstrated its intention and ability to use the rights it is seeking. Several consultees question whether VTE is sufficiently advanced in its preparations to justify the granting of firm rights.

I do wonder if there's going to be a legal battle here...

Edit: Oops accidentally posted before ready:
It has been addressed in the letter part of it here (pg 5):

17. As part of our review, we carefully considered all matters raised in the industry consultation. We also met separately with EIL and FS Group at their request as part of the process in order to further understand their concerns. In particular we considered:

a) Fairness and transparency of LSPH’s processes LSPH has confirmed that other prospective operators were invited into the operational integrity process and we have also asked LSPH to explain the alleged different treatment of EIL. LSPH's subsequent explanation is that EIL's October 2025 request was regarded as largely a rollover of existing rights with only a modest increase in services, whereas prospective new entrants were seeking material new capacity and were therefore invited into an operational integrity assessment process. LSPH's position is that, had EIL sought capacity on a comparable scale, it would have been subject to the same process. We view that the distinction drawn between EIL (as an existing operator who had requested only a modest increase in capacity) and the prospective operators (who were proposing a large number of new services) was objectively justified, consistently applied and sufficiently evidenced.

b) Effective reservation of capacity prior to ORR approval LSPH has indicated that pending approval the capacity associated with the application should effectively be treated as occupied for planning purposes. However, it accepts that the draft FTAA has no legal effect unless and until approved by ORR. Pursuant to Regulation 21(15) of the 2016 Regulations, ORR's role is to decide whether to approve the agreed FTAA submitted by LSPH and VTE. We have been made aware that other operators are in discussions with LSPH about future access rights. We note that there are currently no competing applications before ORR for our consideration. The scope of ORR’s decision is limited to approving (or not) the agreed application that has been submitted to us, not to arbitrating between potential competing or disputed applications. As such, ORR does not consider it would be appropriate to defer determination of this agreed application solely because discussions concerning potential future access rights or capacity requests may be ongoing. That would not be consistent with a fair, transparent or predictable regulatory process.

One other thing I was wondering was the terms of lapsing. Kind of answered here:

The track access agreement includes a date by which the contract will lapse if the rolling stock is not procured.

But the date isn't published in the letter.

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

12. A full summary of the consultation has been published by LSPH on its website.

In the decision letter, there's this link to the LSPH page, but my PDF software can't manage to open it. Does anyone have the link?

 

[ainsworth74]

In the decision letter, there's this link to the LSPH page, but my PDF software can't manage to open it. Does anyone have the link?

It seems that the ORR may have managed to break that part of the letter. However I assume they were trying to point to this bit of the website:

Consultations - London St. Pancras Highspeed

Read more about ' Consultations ' from London St. Pancras Highspeed.

stpancras-highspeed.com