Miles Bassett is a former Chair of Wandsworth and Merton Young Conservatives.
Since the opening of the world’s first high speed railway in Japan in the 1960s, high speed trains have become icons of national advancement, pride and identity. The Japanese Shinkansen and the French TGV are almost as famous national symbols as Mount Fuji and the Eiffel Tower. China’s burgeoning high speed rail network has become a symbol of modernity and geopolitical power.
But our own high speed rail project – High Speed Two (HS2), has been haunted for the past 13 years by the erroneous claim that “it only saves 10 minutes off the London to Birmingham journey time”. High speed rail encapsulates a national story that a post-Brexit, post-Elizabethan Britain is crying out for. And so far, despite its capability to do so, the Conservatives have failed to make HS2 a part of that story, choosing instead to bay for the project’s blood.
Scrapping HS2 might please the fiscally conservative, but look at how the Spanish Government view sits own high-speed rail network. Aside from decreasing journey times between Spanish cities separated by antiquated and dilapidated track, Spain’s high speed railway is an important nation-building tool which, as described eloquently by Spain’s former Minister of Public Works, Magdalena Alvarez, strengthens national cohesion by “sewing Spain [together] with steel threads” in order to face down the multiple separatist movements throughout Spain.
Imagine that the Conservative Party took a similar approach to HS2. As the threads of the Union began to unravel from the mid-2010s, HS2 could have been the opportunity to provide the biggest buttress to the Anglo-Scottish union in generations by creating a long metal spine of high speed rail from London into the Scottish Central Belt.
Yes, it’s debatable whether Spain’s attempt at using high speed rail to keep itself together is working. But with a high speed rail network largely confined to Northern England, it’s no wonder that support for HS2 and unionism, in general, is currently so low in Scotland when HS2 misses Gretna Green by over 100 miles.
You could reassure Scotland that London to Glasgow trains will use HS2 tracks for a period of their journey north as far as Crewe, but I’m doubtful that this would send support for unionism in Scotland skyrocketing. Jason McCartney, MP for Colne Valley, highlights the problem perfectly – that high speed rail needs more than pragmatic arguments for it to be sold – “[HS2 has] always been difficult to make the case for because it is not about speed, it’s about capacity. I would have preferred [HS2] being called the Great Northern Railway, and having some of the vision that the Victorians had”.
Building a high speed rail line purely for capacity arguments may be sensible but, without the wider visionary aspect that a combined HS2/HS3 route could have given, the psychological case cannot be made, resulting in entrenched resistance to the project This is a massive own-goal for the Conservative Party, which could have sold HS2 to deliver on major ideological challenges for it such as the case for unionism or for levelling up.
Critics are right to point out HS2’s £51 billion price tag given today’s economic conditions. HS2 can’t sprawl across the whole of Great Britain, but even its rolling stock order could have been an opportunity to seize a moment of national unity, by creating a truly iconic and British high speed train design to rival the French TGV. Both in prominence and, perhaps, even in export potential from Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe factory. What a boon to levelling-up that would have been.
Britain already has a track record in successful train design – “The Mallard” steam locomotive and the Intercity 125 are perfect examples. But the only attempt at doing so for HS2 was back in 2010, made by design company PriestmanGoode, who proposed the daring ‘Mercury’ train – which was forgotten.
Instead, HS2’s rolling stock will be upgraded, existing designs of trains used on the Italian high speed rail network. This is a major missed opportunity for a Government obsessed with making Britain “world beating” in so many policy areas, and a chance to generate some pride and excitement into this almost universally unpopular project.
The wider Conservative sphere, from leadership hopefuls promising to scrap the project through Daily Telegraph commentary to Conservative activists has spent the past 13 years crying out for the death of a project that can achieve so much for the ideological ideals they so firmly believe in. Identity, progress and national renewal, are all concepts that high speed rail can help to nurture.
So what can the Government do? Firstly, commit to a whole national network. It doesn’t have to be built in one go, but just aspire to build it. Rename the whole project to reflect its truly unifying nature and let more of Britain, Scotland and Northern England be connected by the steel threads. Let Britain dream of a transport system that will revitalise this tired, melancholy country. The costs might be high, but I’m be willing to bet that in 40 years time, we won’t regret it at all.
Miles Bassett is a former Chair of Wandsworth and Merton Young Conservatives.
Since the opening of the world’s first high speed railway in Japan in the 1960s, high speed trains have become icons of national advancement, pride and identity. The Japanese Shinkansen and the French TGV are almost as famous national symbols as Mount Fuji and the Eiffel Tower. China’s burgeoning high speed rail network has become a symbol of modernity and geopolitical power.
But our own high speed rail project – High Speed Two (HS2), has been haunted for the past 13 years by the erroneous claim that “it only saves 10 minutes off the London to Birmingham journey time”. High speed rail encapsulates a national story that a post-Brexit, post-Elizabethan Britain is crying out for. And so far, despite its capability to do so, the Conservatives have failed to make HS2 a part of that story, choosing instead to bay for the project’s blood.
Scrapping HS2 might please the fiscally conservative, but look at how the Spanish Government view sits own high-speed rail network. Aside from decreasing journey times between Spanish cities separated by antiquated and dilapidated track, Spain’s high speed railway is an important nation-building tool which, as described eloquently by Spain’s former Minister of Public Works, Magdalena Alvarez, strengthens national cohesion by “sewing Spain [together] with steel threads” in order to face down the multiple separatist movements throughout Spain.
Imagine that the Conservative Party took a similar approach to HS2. As the threads of the Union began to unravel from the mid-2010s, HS2 could have been the opportunity to provide the biggest buttress to the Anglo-Scottish union in generations by creating a long metal spine of high speed rail from London into the Scottish Central Belt.
Yes, it’s debatable whether Spain’s attempt at using high speed rail to keep itself together is working. But with a high speed rail network largely confined to Northern England, it’s no wonder that support for HS2 and unionism, in general, is currently so low in Scotland when HS2 misses Gretna Green by over 100 miles.
You could reassure Scotland that London to Glasgow trains will use HS2 tracks for a period of their journey north as far as Crewe, but I’m doubtful that this would send support for unionism in Scotland skyrocketing. Jason McCartney, MP for Colne Valley, highlights the problem perfectly – that high speed rail needs more than pragmatic arguments for it to be sold – “[HS2 has] always been difficult to make the case for because it is not about speed, it’s about capacity. I would have preferred [HS2] being called the Great Northern Railway, and having some of the vision that the Victorians had”.
Building a high speed rail line purely for capacity arguments may be sensible but, without the wider visionary aspect that a combined HS2/HS3 route could have given, the psychological case cannot be made, resulting in entrenched resistance to the project This is a massive own-goal for the Conservative Party, which could have sold HS2 to deliver on major ideological challenges for it such as the case for unionism or for levelling up.
Critics are right to point out HS2’s £51 billion price tag given today’s economic conditions. HS2 can’t sprawl across the whole of Great Britain, but even its rolling stock order could have been an opportunity to seize a moment of national unity, by creating a truly iconic and British high speed train design to rival the French TGV. Both in prominence and, perhaps, even in export potential from Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe factory. What a boon to levelling-up that would have been.
Britain already has a track record in successful train design – “The Mallard” steam locomotive and the Intercity 125 are perfect examples. But the only attempt at doing so for HS2 was back in 2010, made by design company PriestmanGoode, who proposed the daring ‘Mercury’ train – which was forgotten.
Instead, HS2’s rolling stock will be upgraded, existing designs of trains used on the Italian high speed rail network. This is a major missed opportunity for a Government obsessed with making Britain “world beating” in so many policy areas, and a chance to generate some pride and excitement into this almost universally unpopular project.
The wider Conservative sphere, from leadership hopefuls promising to scrap the project through Daily Telegraph commentary to Conservative activists has spent the past 13 years crying out for the death of a project that can achieve so much for the ideological ideals they so firmly believe in. Identity, progress and national renewal, are all concepts that high speed rail can help to nurture.
So what can the Government do? Firstly, commit to a whole national network. It doesn’t have to be built in one go, but just aspire to build it. Rename the whole project to reflect its truly unifying nature and let more of Britain, Scotland and Northern England be connected by the steel threads. Let Britain dream of a transport system that will revitalise this tired, melancholy country. The costs might be high, but I’m be willing to bet that in 40 years time, we won’t regret it at all.