The rail industry always knew that the key issues for its future were capacity and connectivity, but thought that only the glamour of very high speed trains would persuade politicians (Gold-plated HS2 looks dead. So let’s run the numbers on a bronze-plated design, 22 September). Very high speed trains require complex engineering solutions, greater construction, rolling stock and signalling costs, and have a much greater environmental impact.
The real justification for new capacity was admitted belatedly, but the design of HS2 from London to Birmingham demonstrates the deficiencies of a system built essentially for pure speed: Milton Keynes and Northampton with populations of over 250,000 ignored, no interchange with East West Rail, not even a travelator link to Birmingham New Street station – and far more damaging to the environment than merely higher speeds.
Instead of looking to France and Spain, which have low population densities and slow and circuitous mainlines, a better point of comparison is Germany, where the high-speed system is better integrated into the existing network and built for varying speeds. For a small, densely populated country like ours, maximum speeds of 155mph, and lower where environmental constraints require it, address capacity and connectivity.
Someone travelling from Liverpool to Newcastle, say, wants a seamless and quick journey. What does any part of HS2 as currently conceived do for the East Midlands, Yorkshire, south Wales, Teeside, Tyneside or the Scottish cities? We need to think again, and design a comprehensive network of higher speed sections of track that can be built at a sensible cost and in a reasonable period of time.
Andrew Gore
Linton, Cambridgeshire
• The threat of cancelling a significant part of HS2 brings with it a cost of its own that will affect a significant number of businesses and their employees. I run a small design agency that is part of the supply chain working on HS2. When Euston was postponed, this resulted in hundreds of redundancies. The impact of cancelling the northern leg will be even more significant. Everyone talks about the cost of the project, which I agree needs to be better controlled, but that money doesn’t just disappear. Much of it goes to businesses across the supply chain and supports the livelihoods of thousands of people.
The Tories used to say they were the party of business – cancelling and delaying major infrastructure projects show this is no longer true.
David Watts
Cambridge
• The main beneficiaries of HS2, the construction firms, already have contracts securing a decade in clover. And even HS2 supporters recognise the primary objective is increased capacity, not speed. So it makes sense still to build a track on the route under construction, but only for conventional trains up to around 150mph, and only with direct links to central London stations and existing tracks to the Midlands and north-west. This would greatly increase the investment’s value to the nation and might even save enough to increase capacity to the north.
Allan Whittow
Wendover, Buckinghamshire
• It seems entirely possible at this point that HS2 will end up as a short stretch of line from Old Oak Common to the M25, with a permanent replacement bus service to take passengers onward to Birmingham and Manchester.
Jonathan Leeming
Melrose, Scottish Borders
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
