I have two suggestions for HS2. Either stop it or make it stop. The spiralling cost and delays are reason enough to rethink the project, never mind the changes to patterns of rail use since 2021. Any economic case based on pre–pandemic projections needs to be revisited. So one option would be to stop the project completely.
But what if the project goes ahead in a reduced form to save face? Well, in this case, the need for speed is questionable. The value of speed to passengers is far from linear. For instance, cutting a journey time from four hours to two, as the TGV did between Paris and Lyon, is a game-changer. Reducing a journey from 80 minutes to 40, on the other hand, isn’t that big a deal.
If, as we are repeatedly told, the case for HS2 is capacity, not speed, we have to ask whether a rather slower but more luxurious version of the train might make more sense. This would be cheaper, and the line could be curvier. But it also avoids an obvious weakness of ultra-fast trains. Slower trains can afford to stop en route. Hence if we can’t stop HS2 we should at least make it stop.
A slower but more luxurious version of HS2 might make more sense
Throughout France, there are towns which naively campaigned for high-speed lines to run nearby, on the assumption that their town would get a TGV station. Too late they discovered that while they got the trains, a station was another matter. The nearest TGV station ended up 70 miles away. For all kinds of reasons, not least physics, ultra-fast rail does not allow for frequent stopping.
This quest for speed therefore obviates one of the principal advantages of rail – which is that a railway, like a road, can benefit communities along its length, not only at the ends.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in