Morning:
8°c
Nothing is scarier than a minister with too much money and a consultant with a pet project. The outcome is always the same, a useless NHS computer, a Crossrail tunnel, an ID card scheme, an aircraft carrier, an Olympic Games. You name it and someone will say it is “a good investment for Britain”.
These so-called “lumpy projects” are seldom worth anything except to their cheerleaders. They cost billions that might have been better spent elsewhere. But they offer ministers a headline and a possible directorship, while consultants and contractors walk off with huge amounts of public money. People soon forget that these things were meant to be profitable.
Addicts of grand projects love high-speed rail lines, largely because the French have them. Last week the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, heavily massaged by consultants, declared his enthusiasm for a new high-speed line, HS2, to run from Euston out through the Chilterns and the Vale of Aylesbury to the north and Scotland.
Apart from tearing up some of the loveliest landscape in the Home Counties, the line of the route is curious. It will not connect with Heathrow, so as to offer hope of supplanting numerous domestic air links. The new line will require transferring air passengers somehow to get from Heathrow to Old Oak Common in Acton to catch the new train to Scotland.
Nor will HS2 connect with Britain's only other high-speed line, from the Channel Tunnel and the continent. This is inexplicable. The Channel Tunnel link was already botched. It came 10 years late after its route was changed by Michael Heseltine in the early Nineties for political reasons. Instead of sensibly going under London from the existing Eurostar terminal at Waterloo and straight on to the North and Scotland, it came round from the east into St Pancras and stopped dead.
Foreigners arriving in Britain by high-speed train and wishing to continue that way will have to sweat their bags along Euston Road past the British Library from St Pancras. So much for high speed. Adonis's decision means that never in our lifetime will Continental railways link with Britain north of London. The Government must be desperate to prevent the Scots getting too close to the French.
The only transport with which HS2 will link is Adonis's other adored project, the £16 billion, yet-to-be-built Crossrail, with no more purpose than to relieve the Central line in rush hour. This jewel-encrusted gift to City commuters — financed almost entirely by taxpayers — should be put out of its misery in the interest of national debt relief, before its construction starts really gridlocking the West End.
City lobbyists love to claim Crossrail will “earn” London billions. In which case, let them invest in it. Similar lobbyists claim HS2 “will generate £55 billion”, yet they look up to the sky when a personal commitment is suggested. These projects are nothing to do with profit. Every penny of this Concorde of the iron road will come from taxpayers.
Faster rail makes sense but high-speed rail in Britain is poor value for money. Carving new routes is expensive and controversial, while commercial viability requires trains to make frequent stops and thus extend journey times. Britain is not like France or Spain, a place of great distances and widely spaced cities. I am sure there is demand for a non-stop train to Scotland but such a train would be thinly used at the high fares needed to make it remotely economic.
Unless heavily subsidised, high-speed rail would be an elite service for the rich. It would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly to take every passenger by low-carbon limousine.
Just as Crossrail is now sucking the near-bankrupt London Underground dry of investment, so HS2 will suck the surface railway. The alternative way to shorten rail journey times is to improve signalling and build short bypasses round (or over) bottlenecks. It also makes sense to use existing pathways, such as the M1 corridor, to avoid environmental aggro.
Such construction can cause delays and impose other forms of cost. But as was seen in the recent shambolic West Coast line re-signalling, that is largely a question of management. If faster routes really are needed, it must make sense for the Government to use existing corridors rather than fight its way across virgin pastures.
More to the point is how best to use limited amounts of new investment when, because of the bailing out of the banks, public debt has soared and resources for transport are likely to be minimal. Everything points towards constraining demand through rationing and pricing, and spending available money on piecemeal improvement. Stimulating demand with glamorous publicly financed infrastructure is unwise.
If I were to ask London commuters what they most wanted from Adonis's billions — and why not ask them? — I cannot believe the answer would be, first, a new tunnel for City bankers and, second, a premium train north of Euston. Most would plead for a better existing service. They want fewer cancellations, improved time-keeping, more carriages, better catering, cheerier platforms and smarter stations with more parking.
For transport planners this translates into more money for existing track and signalling, no overrunning of night-time maintenance, no weekend closures and more investment in rolling stock and stations. The cry is for the existing railway just to work properly. If it is getting overcrowded, put up the fares.
Such a prescription is unexciting to jaded ministers and their aides. It offers no grandiose project to put in a manifesto or boast of at an international conference. But in a time of financial stress, it would mean happier passengers and a better railway.
Reader views (25)
"The new line will require transferring air passengers somehow to get from Heathrow to Old Oak Common in Acton"
Actually it will take 11 minutes via the Heathrow express. New platforms will be built at Old Oak Common allowing it to stop. The interchange will be very straightforward.
"Nor will HS2 connect with Britain's only other high-speed line, from the Channel Tunnel and the continent."
This is completely wrong. The government white paper says that "the new British high speed rail network should be connected ... via High Speed One and the Channel Tunnel". A connection is costed in the HS2 route engineering report at £458m.
"It would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly to take every passenger by low-carbon limousine."
Where is your evidence for this? Eurostar emits 25.3g CO2/pass km. A BMW 7 series emits 266g. And the train is about 3 times faster.
"Britain is not like France or Spain, a place of great distances and widely spaced cities."
But high speed rail has also been successful in Japan, which has a much higher population density.
"The alternative way to shorten rail journey times is to improve signalling and build short bypasses round (or over) bottlenecks."
This option was analysed exhaustively by high speed 2 and they concluded that it would be more expensive, provide less capacity, slower journey times, and produce less revenue. Remember £9bn to upgrade the West Coast Main Line?
- Keith, London, 25/03/2010 13:09
Report abuse
Naturly most of these comments come from the London area, and prove that they believe thers nothing north of Watford Gap! (Except for maybe better football teams?) But as far as having a 'High Speed Transport Service', please have a long and thorough read of the facts from www.500kmh.com the UK Ultraspeed fact sheet (Latest News) No need for me to tell you all about it! Most MP's won't have need for that 'second home! They can spend their little free time with their wives and children! Money spent on the so called 'High Speed 2' will be a complete wast and we will be stuck with it for very many years to come, and our children will never forgive us for it! For an ultra modern system, why should we have to put up with throw-backs to the days of steem, even if it did serve us well!
- Ian, Manchester, 22/03/2010 11:18
Report abuse
I am happy to see the very measured responses to this absolute clap trap of an article. Simon you really are proving to be an irrespresible bore with these same-old, cliched, irresponsible criticisms.
High Speed 2 is primarily about capacity. It should be called High Capacity 2. The vast sums of money that would be required to upgrade the current routes north of London are nothing compared to the disruption that would bring. Leading no doubt to another of your whinging articles.
Instead, the government, supported by both opposition parties, agree that the best method is a new route. A new route to Birmingham, with high capacity long trains, means that the current West Coast Mainline can kick the current intercity trains off, and improve commuter services to Watford, Tring and Milton Keynes. Exactly what you, and I, want, right? Extend the High speed line to East Midlands, and you do the same for Kettering, Wellingborough. Extend the high speed line to Leeds and you can improve local services to Cambridge, Hitchin, Stevenage etc.
The same approach is taken with Crossrail. Have you tried getting on a Central Line train at 8.45am? It is very hard. And before you come out with the same old "lets just improve what we have", the Central Line has already been upgraded as much as is currently possible.
Both Crossrail and High Speed 2 offer a transformative step change to this country. It is incredibly disappointing that you cannot share such vision
- Steve Daly, London, 18/03/2010 13:47
Report abuse
I reckon Simon Jenkins got this proof read by Teresa Villiers (shadow transport) given the nonsense agrees with her nonsense.
Now Heathrow serves passengers making transcontinetal flights who have to change planes on route so whay would they need a high speed line - An evening tour while they waited for their connection I suppose.
Old Oak Common is better described as Old Oak Common/Willesdon Junction it is where the old GWR and LNWR run close together but typical of the private companies of the day a joint station was not built.
As for Simon saying the taxpayer will pay all wrong again because the development of stations including Old Oak Common which is currently a wasteland and could be roofed over to become a Canary Whalf of the west with billions of private investment paying for HS2 and similar developments in Birmingham and other cities served.
Its time this paper got the likes of Roger Ford of Modern Railways to write sensible comments on these big rail schemes raither than journalists who need to get out a bit more.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 18/03/2010 12:24
Report abuse
When Mrs Thatcher gave her approval to the Channel Tunnel project, she made one condition - that it would be entirely self-financing. She refused to offer one penny of taxpayer's money, even to underwrite potential losses - which duly happened as a result of the usual over-optimistic forecasts. Exactly the same should apply for this high-speed rail line which will be mainly for the benefit of first-class passengers. Let them pay for it and fund its construction. That would introduce a note of reality.
- Richard Shaw, Pinner, UK, 17/03/2010 20:47
Report abuse
Let's support a scheme put forward by such a prudent Government.
Let's accept a quote of £30bn as Lord Adonis expects!
Let's tax ourselves even more to pay for it.
Let's cut up more of the countryside.
Let's get to London 45mins quicker.
There must be better ways with less party political announcements.
- Ivan, Birmingham, 17/03/2010 13:45
Report abuse
A commenter writes: "Don't we owe xillions already? Where is this money coming from?"
At the moment we owe almost a trillion pounds. Our current annual deficit is almost £200 billion.
However, we would not be required for HS2 now. It won't even be built until at least 2017. The maximum amount that the government will pay each year to this scheme is £4 billion with an average of about £2 billion. This is a drop in the ocean compared with the annual finances of this country.
To top it all, we expect that the economic return on this project is £2 for each £1 spent.
It sounds like a good investment to me.
- Daniel, London, 17/03/2010 12:47
Report abuse
How can you say bump up the fares if it's overcrowded. People don't travel by tube out of choice, in the main, but out of necessity. How do you suggest the people priced out of using the tube get to work, if they live in, say, Watford, and work in the west end.
- Freddie, London, 17/03/2010 12:42
Report abuse
Hurrah!! A voice of reason speaks out amongst the guff of Government Ministers and the fat cats who would undoubtedly get rich on this proceeds of this project. Whilst having a personal interest in HS2 as it slices through our Area of Outstanding Beauty and is less than a mile from our home, I am outraged that such huge amounts of public money should be spent on such a small part of our pathetically underfunded rail and transport system. Please upgrade the lines that exist and subsidise the ludicrously high fares that are set by the operators if Government have so much public money to spare!.....
- Pippa Hart, Great Missenden, UK, 17/03/2010 12:14
Report abuse
I agree with Mr Jenkins, I live in the Kensington & Chelsea and there is nothing like a councillor with too much money or a head teacher that needs a new school to house his ego. We are in the process of demolishing a perfectly functioning school - a couple of million would have sorted out the problems. Instead a multi million pound school is being built. A local estate built in the 70's, loved by its tenants is to be demolished in build a new estate to pay dividends to the shareholders of the parent company of the housing trust (Catalyst). The BBC uses taxpayers money to buy Lonely Planet publishing company. Where does all this money come from?
- Ludmilla Von Pincer, London, 17/03/2010 12:05
Report abuse
In my opinion journey times on British railways are quite good. The journey times between major cities are competitive with flying times (if you include checking in times and transfers getting to airports).
For example from London to Birmingham (1hr 30mins), London to Manchester (2hr 10mins)and London to Edinburgh (4hrs 20mins)are quite fast if you consider the large distances involved. I used to live in the Netherlands and the dutch trains run at about 80mph a lot slower than here in the UK at 125mph.
Yes they could be a bit quicker (like the French TGV at 200mph) but I don't see much of an economic demand for it at the moment.
The main problem with the UK railways is the price.
To be competitive with the airlines and to encourage more people to use the train rather than fly the price needs to be a lot less.
Reducing the price on longer distance travel would be more effective at getting more people to use the train than spending such a massive amount on reducing already quite fast services.
- Nigel, Harlsden, 17/03/2010 12:02
Report abuse
The old lines have been patched-and-mended already. It is cheaper, faster and causes less upheaval to build new, more modern lines.
The extra capacity is needed anyway, on both long distance and lines such as the Central which is packed even outside the rush hours. As the "backbone" of the tube system, it needs reinforcements badly.
- Alex Mckenna, Woodford, 17/03/2010 10:38
Report abuse
The rail link is required because the existing rail system is reaching capacity, and according to some predictions the West Coast main line will reach capacity as soon as 2015. The public rightly wants more freight on rail and this line is one of the main freight arteries in England.
Improving existing lines costs two or three times as much as building new ones. HS1 came in on time and on budget, whereas improving the west coast line was very late and exceeded the budget by two or three times.
It makes sense to make the new line for high speed because it does not cost that much more to do so, and the potential to attract people out of their cars is much greater if the line is high speed.
Some other points that Simon makes; Crossrail is needed because other transport links, particularly the LUL Central line, are becoming dangerously overcrowded. Improving the West Coast main line is out of the question due to costs of working round an existing live railway. HS1 and HS2 will be easily be linked using a mile of existing line through Camden Road station.
Heathrow will be linked to HS2 via Crossrail. To link Heathrow directly to HS2 is unnecessary, will add to journey times, and cause increased environmental damage to the Cotswolds as the route will be further west.
- Derek Monnery, Chairman Essex Rail Users Federation, Manningtree, Essex, 17/03/2010 09:18
Report abuse
Don't we owe xillions already? Where is this money coming from? We are broke - ah, never mind, why don't we go and buy a new car, a house in France, what else would you like, darling voter?
- Mari Warcwm, London, 17/03/2010 09:00
Report abuse
Glad several people have shown up this article for the nonsense it is. The second stage of the high speed network will integrate the north and midlands into a unified region, with Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds all an hour or less from each other. This region will have economic clout to rival the south east, and the big European polycentric city regions like the Randstad, Rhine-Ruhr, Lombardy and Rhone-Alps. But before that happens the London-Midlands high speed line has to be built, and the planned route is sensible and minimises its impact on the Chilterns, which can't realistically be avoided altogether. They should add a parkway station at Aylesbury to make it accessible to Bucks, Herts, Oxford.
- Chris Packham, Birmingham, 17/03/2010 08:46
Report abuse
Simon Jenkins asks what London commuters want, and suggests better services, etc. Yes - and fewer snouts in the trough! How much better would services be if we weren't suffering PPP? Edinburgh is now 30 minutes further from London than it was pre-privatisation. Perhaps he would prefer unwinding privatisation to HS2 - he might even argue its economic advantage!
But seriously, despite its faults, the transport system is providing a service that is increasingly used - and with sensible integration growth is likely to continue. So there are some pretty big bottlenecks to be addressed and Crossrail and HS2 will be a significant help
- Graham Morrison, London, 17/03/2010 03:42
Report abuse
Simon, have you ever tried to travel between Paddington and Aldgate? It's a long and depressingly slow trundle which reminds one just how large central London is. As for the fact that the business centre of London now extends from places like Hammersmith and Padddington to Canary Wharf, well the last 20 years seems to have passed you by.
It's of course fun to bash bankers, but its also pathetic to extend that to bashing City workers in general and by extension Crossrail. Around 500,000 people work in the City and Docklands, mostly pretty ordinary types working long hours with uncertain job security for salaries that fall vastly short of the mega-bucks of the few. And if you think of it, those 500,000 support perhaps another 2-3 million in their families and through their spending and tax payments.
Crossrail is absolutely necessary to keep London in business, and will be a boon to the tens of thousands of commuters who currently have to struggle across London using what is basically a century old underground system.
As for HS2, you say commuters want a railway with better reliability, fewer cancellations and more carriages. But transforming the existing railways to do this would mean a decade of disruptions and closures while a victorian infrastructure is torn apart and rebuilt to drag it just part of the way into the 21st century - all of which would cost 10s of billions just like high speed rail.
- Nick, Marylebone, London, 16/03/2010 22:11
Report abuse
And where does Simon live exactly? Wouldn't have a personal NIMBY-type interest in this not being built would he...?
- Ian Bartlett, Chesham, UK, 16/03/2010 17:25
Report abuse
I would much rather the government invested in improvements to services on the existing line from Euston to Scotland (on which billions has already been expended).
I'm sure I heard a government spokesperson admit on TV the other night that the new trains would run on existing lines initially in the north, so why not use the existing infrastructure we have in the south too? We might not be able to reach quite such high speeds on the existing line, but is there evidence of a huge demand for the ultra high-speed service? If faced with a choice between a new high-speed connection between London and Birmingham, or equivalent expenditure on improvements to existing rail services country-wide, I know which I'd vote for.
Unless the service is heavily subsidised, a lot of people will probably not be able to afford to take the fast train anyway. I know several people in Kent who still take the slower trains to London because they find the high-speed service unaffordable.
- Janey, London, 16/03/2010 17:10
Report abuse
I would like to support this project, I really would. But then I see the cost - £30bn, and I wounder what it will eventually cost, I will bet it will be north of £100bn at the end. Just look at all the other large government proijects - NHS computer, ID cards, Scottish Parliment, Millenium Dome, Chinook helicopters, all alrge Government IT projects, etc, etc, etc. And I have to ask is the money wisely spent?? Should it be spent instead in improving what we already have. Just £1bn or £2bn spent on comuter lines would make a huge diffrence to many Londoners. Again £1bn or £2bn spent on rail networks around Newcastle and prehaps some improvements to East - West networks. How about freight?? This new line wont take freight - and I for one would love to see more lorries off the road. So in all, a good idea, but I think we could do better things with the money - even if we could afford it, which I doubt.
- Very Angry At Mp'S Expenses, Home Counties, 16/03/2010 16:58
Report abuse
I fail to see how getting to Birmingham 45 minutes sooner at the cost of £50+ Billion plus is "vital for this Country's competitiveness" We are not the size of France or Spain and do not need a fast track link up to our Cities, just a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable one.
Spend the money on improving the existing infrastructure and save the money.
- Malc London, Gerrards Cross, England, 16/03/2010 16:32
Report abuse
I haven't read such a poorly researched article in a long time.
The route is well defined and is sympathetic to the Chilterns landscape. There are a couple of tunnels to minimise the impact and some cuttings to hide the line.
The passengers will easily be able to get from Heathrow to Old Oak Common by both Crossrail and the Heathrow Express (i.e. all 5 terminals).
The government's report states that there is no firm decision yet on the HS1 link, but the options have been made available and further investigative work is being done.
Quite how Simon expects a tunnel under London to start at the existing Waterloo platforms I do not know. This would destroy Waterloo station and would be an incredibly steep gradient under the Thames. Or did he mean that there should be an underground station for HS2? Well, again, the reports (freely available on the DfT website) clearly state that an underground HS terminus is prohibitively expensive. The amount of earth that you'd have to dig out would be immense.
Crossrail serves many purposes other than being a sop to the bankers. It creates new journey opportunities and increases the accessibility of Heathrow, Thameslink and Stratford for starters.
Has Simon looked at the commercial viability? Really? Then he will know that the fares need to be competitive so that the trains run full all the time.
So they won't be just for the rich.
Londoners want better train services. Well HS2 will provide that. Extra capacity will work.
- Daniel, London, 16/03/2010 16:16
Report abuse
Oh Simon, do you ever stop moaning?
Crossrail will boost London's transport capacity and actually help the London Underground by diverting passengers away from its over-crowded services.
And High-Speed rail is vital to this country's competitiveness. It takes far too long to get from city to city in this country, and we lose out compared to those on the Continent. High-speed rail helps to solve this problem, plus it allows more varied services to go ahead on the old network (like the WCML). So it will actually help travellers on the current system as well.
- Michael, London, 16/03/2010 14:55
Report abuse
Why can't we have an efficient service on the tracks we already have and god knows there are enough of them up and down the country? Why must it be new tracks and new lines or crap?
- Bloke, Lambeth, 16/03/2010 14:54
Report abuse
As usual Jenkins uses his privileged position to have a pop at Crossrail. Grow up Simon, Crossrail isn't bleeding LU dry - its part and parcel of delivering a 21 Century rail network for London.
Everyone benefits - even ES hacks! Across London Crossrail delivers some £36 billion in economic and transport improvements. Thousands of jobs across the UK.
And guess what? HS2 will do the same. Maybe you enjoy living with our Victorian rail network but Londoners and people in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Scotland don't.
Crossrail and HS2 will revolutionise travel in the UK - super fast links across Britain, the capital and on to Europe - good for jobs, business, leisure and tourism.
I have no doubt that had you been alive in the 1830s as the railways pioneers planned and built the world's first rail network you would have been on your soapbox at Hyde Park Corner grumbling that it was all a waste of money and why on earth couldn't folk travel by horse and cart!
- Luke, London, 16/03/2010 13:06
Report abuse
