HS2 is still the only answer

Contrary to yesterday’s headlines, Ed Balls actually said in his speech that Labour ‘continue to back the idea of a new North-South rail link’.

Let us be clear – it’s HS2 that he’s talking about. The decision to refer to it as a North-South line was made by Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle several weeks ago because the case for the line has unwisely focussed on speed and time savings, when what it’s really about is capacity and getting growth in our regional economies.

Both he and Rachel Reeves also made it clear that they would reconsider if the costs rise beyond the current £50 billion. But again this isn’t new. It’s merely the mark of a party that’s serious about controlling public spending.

Now, I will admit that there was a change in emphasis yesterday. Ed Balls said that we need to be sure that HS2 is the best way to spend £50 billion for the future of the country. Here’s why I think it is.

For a start, building HS2 doesn’t mean forsaking investment in existing lines. This investment is happening now. It started in our time in office, with Crossrail, Thameslink, and the electrification of the Great Western and Transpenine routes. And to be fair to them, the current Government have stuck to these projects.

But once we’ve brought the ‘classic network’ up to scratch, a law of diminishing returns kicks in. For every pound we invest, we get less and less extra capacity. In addition, work becomes increasingly disruptive to passengers.

At the moment, this is most apparent on the West Coast Main Line. An upgrade over the last decade allowed some extra trains to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow – but despite the £9 billion spent, the line is already reaching capacity.

So when Virgin applied to run services to Blackpool and Shrewsbury earlier this year, the Office for Rail Regulation said no, because cramming in too many trains could increase delays on existing services.

With HS2 taking the main long distance trains off the classic network, space will be freed up for services to smaller towns and cities like this. In addition there will be more commuter services into our major cities, and all of this will be achieved without years of rail-replacement bus services.

Some have suggested reducing the speed to cut costs. But the reality is, building a new line to a reduced specification would only reduce the cost of the project fractionally, while also sacrificing all the time savings.

And the line doesn’t just go to Birmingham. From phase one, services will continue to destinations on the classic network. After phase two, the Edinburgh to London journey will have been cut by over an hour.

Of course, there are alternatives to HS2. We could build more roads, or push people onto short-haul flights. But for anyone that acknowledges rail’s advantages – such as being able to travel right into city centres, and reducing carbon emissions – HS2 is still the only answer.