And when I wave my magic wand …

As Justine Greening MP, Secretary of State for Transport, was nearing the conclusion of her statement on HS2 to the House of Commons on Tuesday 10th January 2012 (transcript) she pulled a familiar rabbit out of the hat:

“I warmly welcome the political consensus on HS2, on the basis that it will help to ensure that the planning and construction of this transformational scheme are carried through to completion.”

Yes our old favourite “transformational” was dusted off and pressed into service. I would like a shiny one pound coin for every time that I have heard or read this word used in connection with HS2.

Now I would be first to admit that there have been some truly transformational developments in transport technology, that have without doubt transformed our lives and fortunes. The construction of the canals was “transformational”, and so was the spread of our steam rail network. When BOAC introduced the first commercial jet airliner service, that was “transformational”, and so was the building of our first motorways.

So will HS2, like these past wonders of their age, be “transformational”?

“Why would it be?” is my reaction to that proposition. All HS2 does is augment existing railway links between a small number of large cities, offering the promise of reduced journey times, projected lower crowding levels and improved reliability. The plain truth is that the existing links are already very good and the improvement offered by HS2 is, it must be said, marginal. Crucially, HS2 has the significant disadvantage of bypassing all economic centres other than the very small handful of large cities that it will serve.

I genuinely can’t see that as a “transformational” proposition. I said so in response to the public consultation, but of course that lone voice has had no impact on the Government publicity machine’s love of the word. However, I was heartened when I found that a much more powerful voice than mine was echoing the same sentiment; the following observations were e-published by The Economist on 7th December 2011 (here):

“Any claims that a rail link will be ‘transformational’ seem dubious: this will certainly increase capacity on the west coast route, and it will also hopefully last a long time and be enjoyed by future generations. But no railway building can be transformational now in the way that the first network can. Britain is already well-served by a dense transport network that needs upgrading and improving, but not, in my view, through spending £32 billion on a single route.”

The Secretary of State was really getting up a head of steam by now as the hyperbolic rhetoric came thick and fast:

“HS2 matters to the long-term success and prosperity of the whole of Britain. It will help to create jobs, support growth and regenerate our regions.”

Now here the lady really was straying into boggy ground. There is a growing and influential body of opinion that refuses to accept these unsubstantiated claims. Even some fans of high speed rail appear to doubt that economic benefits will necessarily follow in its wake. Take for example Lord Digby Jones, past Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, Minister of State for Trade and Development in the previous government and one of the signatories to a letter strongly supporting HS2. He told The Sunday Telegraph, as reported in an article published on 15th January 2012 (here), that HS2 would not benefit the economy of his native West Midlands. This article quoted him as saying:

“Let nobody in Birmingham think this will boost the Birmingham economy. They are going to have to get used to being the northernmost suburb of London.”

The press appears to be becoming more sceptical with every passing day; to cite but three examples:

The view of The Economist (in an article published in September 2011) is that:

“… in most developed economies high-speed railways fail to bridge regional divides and sometimes exacerbate them.”

The Independent, in a leading article published on 7th January 2012 (here), concludes that:

“There is no shortage of transport schemes – both rail and road – which would more reliably create jobs and boost growth. The vast investment in HS2 would be more effectively spent elsewhere.”

And The Sunday Times in an editorial of 8th January 2012 thinks that the money for HS2 would be of more benefit spent on other transport projects.

Advertisements

4 responses to this post.

  1. Dear Peter
    The thinking in official minds is just so blinkered. It is scary that the powers that be pay such scant regard as to how they spend “our” money, especially, as they have a “consultation” which is ignored as it is overwhelming opposed. See wind farms as the next example of heavy subsidies payed for by the poor old taxpayer.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Bill Adam on February 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Peter,

    In your missive of 13 Feb. you say “Crucially, HS2 has the significant disadvantage of bypassing all economic centres other than the very small handful of large cities that it will serve.”.

    If HS2 were to stop at these other centres it would cease to be HS.
    The solution is to serve the other centres without stopping HS2.
    Imagine HS2 in Paddington station. The coaches are labelled:-
    Heathrow
    High Wycombe
    Oxford
    Banbury
    Warwick
    Birmingham

    Each group of coaches carries a motor and a driver. The train pulls away and is soon cruising at a modest 150 mph. As it approaches Heathrow the Heathrow group of coaches detaches from the rear of the train, slows and pulls into the Heathrow siding/station. The Birmingham coaches have left the station and pulled onto the main line immediately ahead of HS2 where they drop back onto the front of HS2.
    Thus HS2 has served Heathrow without slowing down. It is a corridor train and the new passengers take their seats in their appropriate destination coaches.(Journey time London to Birmingham 40 minutes)
    There is no theoretical limit to this system, one could run a “non-stop” train from Penzance to Thurso (train changes taking place whilst doing 150 mph.). Journey time 4 hours and 40 minutes.
    A major annoyance for residents along HS2’s route is that it does nothing for them.
    If this system were combined with my suggestion for using the fast lanes of motorways as high speed rail tracks there would be nothing for anyone to protest against and the work could start tomorrow. (I won’t mention the highly vocal, heavily subsidised, motor transport lobby)

    Reply

    • Hi Bill and thanks for your comments.
      Of course I fully understand why HS2 Phase 1 has only four stations and why they are concentrated at the two ends of the route. However, the point that I was trying to make is that this feature is a fundamental flaw in the high speed rail model. Railways need passengers and passengers need stations. If the new railway network model has fewer stations than the InterCity network, then it can’t serve passengers as well.
      I am intrigued by your description of high speed dodgem cars. I have seen a similar proposal made for urban transport, but that operated at much lower speeds. I doubt somehow that the Government would be up for it.
      What you do illustrate very well is that many consider that a rail solution based upon “trains” using metal wheels on metal rails may be coming towards the end of its dominance in railway technology.
      What HS2 is trying to do is catch up with TGV more than forty years late. In fourteen years when HS2 opens it may look like very old technology indeed.

      Reply

      • Posted by William Adam on February 14, 2012 at 11:47 pm

        Peter,

        I wouldn’t Knock steel wheels too hard, alternatives such as air cushion and magnets seem to have their own problems.
        Passengers are not expected to do James Bond style transfers, they wait until the coaches are coupled! Then have about 5 minutes to take their seat if they want the next station.
        The separation and link-up should be fairly straight forward, they don’t have to steer, just match speed. They do a far more complex link-up when re-fueling jet aircraft at several hundred mph (and no rails to keep them on track!), or space craft in earth orbit at 18,000 mph.
        The real block to progress is the road transport lobby to whom, I suspect, all the major political parties are in thrall.

        Bill Adam

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: