*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

In defence of the high-speed-rail project

by
18 January 2012

iStock

From Mr R. L. Skelton

Sir, — Once again (Letters, 5 August), I feel compelled to write in support of HS2. Your leader com­ment (13 January), by support­ing the well-heeled nimbys of Bucking­hamshire, will only confirm what many already think, which is that the Church of England is interested only in middle-class, middle-aged Middle England.

Your argument concerning plants and bio-diversity is totally spurious. Modern agriculture, which you appear to defend, is bad for the great majority of plants and wildlife, whereas it is well known that rail routes, by providing safe corridors largely free from man, have enormous bio-diversity, and also provide links for the spread of both plant and wildlife across the country.

I agree that it is vital that those who suffer detriment are adequately compensated, but it is interesting that we did not get objections from the same nimbys when the M40 passed along basically the same route. There is no comparison between either the environmental damage or noise levels resulting from motorways and high-speed rail lines, though, of course, they cannot drive their 4.2-litre Range Rovers on the railway. Ask anyone living close to HS1 and the M20.

As always, the objectors concentrate on the time saved, but the real reason why HS2 is essential is that the West Coast Main Line (WCML) is virtually at full capacity now, and the East Coast Main Line (ECML) very soon will be.

HS2 will release capacity on both routes for freight, commuter, and local trains. Tinkering at the edges by abolition of first class, etc., would not, as has been proved over and over again, give this extra capacity. HS2 has national advantages well beyond its own route.

The costs and timescale are, as always, with UK projects, much higher than for similar work in Europe, but much of this is due to our arcane planning laws, and the fact that well-heeled nimbys can delay projects vital to the national interest for many years: nuclear power and the A14 are other examples. The additional work to satisfy the Tory voters of Bucking­hamshire will add more than £1 billion to the costs, and make the line much more difficult to operate.

I must agree that our railways are very expensive, but, again, much of this is due to the way the railways are organised. We now have the worst of both worlds, with far more state intervention than we ever had under British Rail. Far too many decisions are taken for political rather than operational reasons, e.g. the electrification to Wales before that to the East Midlands, which would have given a much faster return on the investment; and the procurement of new trains from Japan rather than Europe or the UK, even though they are 30 per cent more expensive and less suited to UK conditions. I cannot, however, agree that the railways lack investment at the moment.

There is more money being spent on the railways, even without HS2, than at any time for many years. We have Crossrail, Thameslink, three significant electrification projects, and much new rolling stock, together with many small but vital projects, such as the Hitchin flyover and the Ordsall curve. I agree that the current structure is highly flawed, but I still think that, overall, the companies do a good job.

R. L. SKELTON
Magdalene College
Cambridge CB3 0AG

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear alongside your letter.

The Church Times Podcast

Interviews and news analysis from the Church Times team. Listen to this week’s episode online

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)