The traditional Tory heartland in the shires is rebelling at a plan that its supporters say offers a major chance to refashion Britain's economy, writes MARK HENNESSY
DAVID CAMERON’S country neighbours are not happy. Posters erected outside the gates of his retreat, Chequers, deep in the heart of the Chilterns, declare opposition.
In the nearby villages, where most have voted little other than Conservative for generations, placards stand defiantly in gardens, warning Cameron that future support cannot be relied upon.
For supporters, the concept of high-speed railways from London to Manchester and Leeds and then on to Scotland by 2036 offers a once-in-a-century chance to refashion Britain’s economy, currently tilted heavily in favour of the capital.
For its detractors, and there are many, it threatens to bring noise, a collapse in property values, and the destruction of the countryside.
This week the House of Commons transport committee issued a report on the issue, noting it had – unusually – received correspondence and evidence from members of the Conservative/Liberal Democrats cabinet pointing MPs to the opposition voiced against the HS2 project, scheduled to start operating from Euston to Birmingham by 2026 and to Manchester and Leeds by 2032 and, hopefully, further north later on.
Philip Hammond, transport secretary until he was moved to defence to replace Liam Fox, was its most determined advocate, insisting “it could transform Britain’s competitiveness as profoundly as the coming of the railways in the 19th century”. This was the engine that stoked the fires of the industrial revolution and made Britain the powerhouse of the world for a time.
If built, 18 400m-long HS2 trains would run every hour, each with 1,100 people on board, at 400km/h – cutting the London/Birmingham journey from 84 to 49 minutes, while Manchester and Leeds would be brought “within 80 minutes of London”.
The trip to Glasgow and Edinburgh, currently a five-hour- plus marathon on a good day, would be cut by an hour.
The bill, predictably, is huge: £32 billion in 2009 prices, if it stays within budget.
London Euston, with its 40-year-old terminal building, would have to be completely rebuilt; a new terminal four miles to the west of Euston would be needed to link up with the still unfinished Crossrail, the Heathrow Express and the Great Western main line that runs to Wales.
Eighteen local authorities, led by the staunchly Conservative Buckinghamshire Council and including Staffordshire, Coventry, Warwickshire, Leicestershire and Hillingdon, have formed the “51m” coalition to oppose HS2, while a plethora of residents’ groups and others have combined to form the AGAHST federation – Action Groups Against High Speed Two.
The issue has created difficulties within the environmental lobby, which normally hankers after anything that will take motorists off crowded motorways. HS2’s supporters say it is carbon neutral.
London’s mayor Boris Johnson is another “in principle” supporter, although he warns that another Underground line will be needed if Euston is to cope.
Despite the clamour, the project, according to respected railway writer Christian Wolmar, has so far had a relatively easy time since the leaderships of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour all back it, while MPs from northern constituencies are loud in demanding it, believing it could help to renew a private enterprise culture in districts addicted to public spending.
However, difficulties lie ahead. The Economist magazine, for example, spoke for many with its recent dismissal of the arguments in favour, insisting Britain was too small to justify the cost and that existing services, when they performed, ran faster than Continental equivalents. Paris, meanwhile, has attracted more companies, not less, since its TGV link to Lyon in the south was opened 30 years ago.
Wolmar, who recently published his magisterial history of Britain’s railways, Fire and Steam, argues that HS2’s figures do not add up, saying they are based on “hugely optimistic assumptions of growth”, with an estimate that 165,000 passengers would travel from the West Midlands alone to London every day, compared with 45,000 now.
The Department of Transport under Hammond insisted its figures were right, warning that some of Britain’s key rail routes would be “completely full” at peak in the next 20 years.
His replacement in transport, Justine Greening, has not been in the job for long enough for anyone to discern whether the mantra espoused by Hammond, at some cost to his popularity within Conservative ranks, will be continued.
The graphs point Hammond’s way, at least in part. Railway passenger traffic has doubled in the 15 years to 2009, despite high prices on many services, while much of the extra traffic is to be found on the West Coast main line – the one that HS2 should supplement.
Here passenger numbers have risen 10 per cent a year since 2008, partly as a result of the last upgrade of the line and timetable improvements, particularly at weekends.
Network Rail has been “unequivocal” in its evidence, telling MPs: “On the West Coast main line in particular, strong growth on inter-city services and continued growth on commuter and regional services to towns including Milton Keynes and Northampton will soon mean that capacity on the line will be effectively exhausted, and it will be impossible to do anything to further increase capacity.”
However, “full” has a particular meaning for railway managers, meaning that at certain times of the day it would not be possible to provide train paths for additional services – passengers or freight – which train operators wanted.
It does not mean getting a seat, or even a place to stand freely, on an overcrowded train – the existing situation that blights the lives of rush-hour commuters.