High-Speed Rail

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Stephen Pound

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have a great interest in rail and, generally speaking, I am positive and passionate about the railways. Unfortunately, however, on this occasion I have to speak negatively about High Speed 2. I am deeply sceptical of it, for a variety of reasons. It is an unnecessary route and will be very expensive, and that money would be better spent elsewhere on modernisation, electrification, re-signalling and a variety of other expenditures. Eddington took the same view in his report. He was absolutely right to say that the focus should be on commuter and inter-urban routes, above all to relieve congestion, which causes extreme expense for the whole economy; that expense will rise to tens of billions of pounds in the next two or three decades, unless we do something to relieve congestion.

Congestion is caused by a number of things, the first being passengers using cars when we should be using rail. It is also caused by heavy freight, not directly so much as indirectly, because heavy freight on roads causes road damage. What is known as the fourth power law of road damage relates axle weights to road damage, and it is lorries that cause damage to roads. I am not against lorries per se, but a lot of the traffic that goes by road should actually go by rail. Road damage means that motorways have to be coned off time and again so that roads can be repaired, which means having two lanes for long stretches instead of three. The same applies to towns. It is necessary, for the future, to get heavy freight off road and on to rail.

I spoke on this theme in a recent debate in this Chamber, and explained how we ought to spend the money in alternative ways. For example, HS2 will run from north to south. There are already north-south routes, but they have not had sufficient investment, despite their modernisation, and they do not have enough capacity as they stand. They could, however, have enough capacity if we invested heavily in modern signalling, got many more train paths on the same tracks, and got freight off those lines. Before anyone jumps in and says, “Ah, but if we build HS2, we can put the passengers on that and leave the other lines free for freight,” that is nonsense, because it is impossible for the gauge sufficiently to provide, all the way up the backbone of Britain, for getting trailers on trains and even full-scale containers on flat-bed trucks. It is not possible to rebuild all those mainline railway lines on a gauge that is sufficient to take all the freight necessary. Moreover, scores of other major stations on those lines have to serve passengers, so passenger trains have to run on those routes, whatever is done about HS2.

HS2 serves only major cities. All those hon. Members who are enthusiastic about HS2 but who are not actually served by it might find that money that could have been invested in their own routes will be sucked away and spent on HS2. People who live in Milton Keynes, Coventry—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is sitting to my right—Luton and many other areas are not served. Before anyone says that I am a nimby, I am not, because HS2 will not serve or go anywhere near Luton.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Those of us in Perivale certainly feel the pain, and there is no discernible indication of gain. On my hon. Friend’s analysis of the finances, can he enlighten us about the extent of private sector investment and involvement in this great, vast, glittering scheme?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is for the Minister to pronounce on and explain. I am a traditional socialist of the left and believe in public investment, which I think is much cheaper—the markets can be borrowed from much more cheaply, but I will not go into that now, because we will end up getting into private finance initiatives, public-private partnership and all those other financial disasters. I do not want to tread on dangerous ground, but the tube was not exactly a success, in terms of PPP. I believe in public investment, but wherever the investment comes from, it will be a very large sum that could be spent elsewhere. The opportunity costs will be great.

It would be easy to modernise the east coast main line. We could double the viaduct north of Welwyn to make four tracks instead of two; it is a pinch-point at the moment. A flyover is already being built for the Cambridge line at Hitchin. We would then need a passing loop at Peterborough, which would not be difficult, and a flyover at Newark. The whole line would then be open for 140 mph working, non-stop from King’s Cross to Edinburgh. In 1992, a test train did that route, non-stop apart from a two-minute stop at Newcastle, in three and a half hours. Interestingly, the proponents of HS2 suggest a time of three and a half hours—the exact same time that could be achieved on the existing route with a bit of modernisation.

The west coast main line is much more heavily used and serves more areas. Modernisation could get it to work at 135 mph, and similar route modifications could make it much better. We need to get the freight off that line. I repeat that freight and heavy axle weights cause more damage to tracks, which then need more repairs and more maintenance work. If we got freight off that line, and had modern signalling and many more train paths, we would have what we need up the west coast. As for passenger numbers, certainly the east coast has plenty of scope already; on the west coast, there is enough to cope for the long-term future.

I am arguing for a new, dedicated rail freight line; some hon. Members may know that I have been proposing that for a long time. I have been involved with a group of people who have a scheme that has been thought through in detail and involves a precise route. It would use old track bed and existing routes, and would involve only 14 miles of new line, nine of which is in tunnels. There would be a dedicated rail freight route up the backbone of Britain, serving all the major conurbations and linked to the channel tunnel; freight could go from Glasgow to Rome direct. The trains would be able to take full-scale lorry trailers, and double-stacked containers if necessary, all the way from the continent of Europe right through to Scotland. That is what Britain needs. That proposal would take 5 million lorry-loads off the roads, and much of the north-south freight off the east coast and west coast main lines. The supermarkets and a number of commercial organisations support the scheme.