Signal failure

Rail privatisation by the Major government heralded the largest growth in passenger numbers in decades. This was down to improvements in service and a timetable to suit passengers, coupled with some attractive fare offers. But future growth of rail travel is unlikely to be at the same high rate and there we have the nub of the arguments around High Speed 2. The Department for Transport has been less successful in forecasting passenger growth than Gordon Brown was at forecasting economic growth — and that is saying something.

Britain needs an integrated transport policy that includes road, rail and air, and it needs to address the so-called north-south divide. But Conservatives believe in choice, so users should be able to choose for themselves the most convenient way to travel.

In a recent letter, the British Chambers of Commerce compare the proposed 70 miles of high-speed railway in the United Kingdom to high-speed rail in countries such as Saudi Arabia (342 miles) and Morocco (422 miles). But those countries do not have such well-developed separate rail or motorway networks. Nor do they have our high population density. As T.E. Lawrence found, there is a lot of empty space in Saudi Arabia.

HS2 does even not substantially cut travelling time between London and Birmingham. Virgin is already reducing journey times on its service and the difference by the time HS2 is built could be as little as 15 minutes.

Many believe that the estimated cost of the line — £32 billion in 2009 prices, so closer to £40 billion now — cannot stand up to scrutiny without also assessing the benefits and costs of an extension to the north, which has not been conducted in any detail.