HS2 will boost the economy for decades to come – but claims of waste and folly shouldn’t be ignored

Editorial: Every time reviews of the high-speed rail link are released, alarm bells are sent ringing – costs are spiralling out of control and the current rumour places a £106bn price tag on the project

The project will reduce the unbearable pressure on capacity and make journey times shorter (PA)

Any visitor to one of Britain’s magnificent Victorian railway stations is usefully reminded of two things. When they arrive at gems such as, say, Huddersfield (1850), Edinburgh Waverley (1846) or St Pancras (1868) they are awed by the ambition and pride of the architects and engineers of the day – and, more prosaically, that these cathedrals of travel stand as testament to the fact that investment in public transport infrastructure usually has a very long period of payback.

It is in this deep historical perspective that the current debate about the HS2 lines to the midlands and north needs to be placed.

Every six months or so some leak of one or other official review of the high-speed rail scheme sends alarm bells ringing when the reported cost keeps rising by tens of billions of pounds. So it is with the current rumour that the latest exercise in political prevarication, the Oakervee review, has put a price on the project of some £106bn. That is another 20 per cent or so higher than the projected cost stated in a previous report, by HS2 chairman Allan Cook, as recently as last September.

In 2017, when HS2 was approved by parliament, the figure was £56bn. Even by the standards of grand public engineering projects, that is a remarkable cost inflation, both in relative and, perhaps more apposite given the sheer size of the necessary borrowing, in absolute terms.

However, the cost of the project will be spread over some two decades – the second phase links from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds will not run before 2040 – and the benefits to the UK and the northern economy will sustain for many decades afterwards. That is no reason to dismiss the critics’ claims of waste and folly, and these deserve to be taken seriously.

The Oakervee report, it is suggested, will advocate a six-month delay for yet another look at the northern branches, and whether they could be serviced by a mix of faster and slower train lines, rather than emulating the Japanese “bullet trains” or French TGVs trains with speeds of 200mph plus along the nature route.

There are also legitimate questions about the siting of stations. The east midlands, for example, may not be well served by a “parkway” that is some distance removed from the centres of the great cities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. It also remains unclear whether the link to Birmingham with a station many miles from the city centre will work; and the same doubts apply to Leeds and, in a more fanciful plan to press on to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Estimating economic benefits as far distant as the 22nd century is a mug’s game. No one can possibly know what will happen to the economy in that time. Technological developments could, conceivably, radically reduce the need for many of us to commute to work or take business trips. The electric car might take the environmental edge (to a degree) from public transport systems. National demographics – on that timescale – are difficult to plot, given the unknown trends for immigration, as is the geographic pattern of economic activity.

After all, in the 1960s, at the time of the Beeching cuts, the railways (only then emerging from the age of steam) were regarded as being virtually obsolete, with thousands of miles of track torn up, rural stations closed and, adding insult to injury and a crime against civilisation – the demolition of the old Euston Arch, with its imposing Doric columns.

What we do know, however, is that the main benefit from HS2 will come in reducing the unbearable pressure on capacity which shows no signs of abating, as well as shorter journey times. It will mean fewer passengers will have to squat, Jeremy Corbyn-style, in the vestibules of “ram-packed” passenger trains, and having to pay scarcity premium prices just for the privilege of getting from London to Manchester before tea time.

Besides, the very existence of the new faster lines may stimulate economic activity – albeit not in a way that is readily predictable – and support the economy in what may turn out to be some difficult years, post-Brexit.

Britain’s overriding economic problem has long been its poor productivity; while there is no excuse for squandering public funds, investing in railways on the longest of long views seems to be one of the better options to boost output per head by reducing travel times and costs. This is probably why the Oakervee report will grudgingly advocate going ahead with it.

HS2 is far from perfect, and more effort needs to be made to make the most of it and to protect ancient woodlands, but it is one of the few ways that Britain can make itself ready to compete in an economic environment that will soon be much less hospitable than what we have been used to.