And, if true, yet again, we remain with this pre-Victorian rail alignment as our most major mainline.
We'll probably then spend nearly as much as HS2 would have cost ekeing out an extra path or two by screwing over intermediate stops and doing sticking plaster solutions - just like last time...
It would have been better to allow the Luftwaffe to completely destroy the UK rail network in the same way that the RAF and USAAF destroyed the German, Dutch and French network. Then we'd have had to use the Marshall Aid money we got from the USA after the war to rebuild, as the latter three countries did.
Instead we gave the money we got to the UK car industry (amongst others) and encouraged them to build "stuff" to export to the remains of the Empire and elsewhere in a vain attempt to export our way out of the financial disaster that was winning WWII. All we got was more austerity at home, bread rationing into the 1950s and more than 1,000 obsolete steam engines that were then consigned prematurely to the scrapheap.
Oh, and don't forget that we had to pay the USA for all the "war materiel" it provided under Lend-Lease. Every Sherman tank destroyed on the Normandy battlefields had to be paid for eventually by the Exchequer.
I'm no great fan of HS2. I think its a white elephant and a political vanity project designed to line the pockets of those people in industry who bankroll the current political status quo. But - time and time again, we've seen the politicians demonstrate their complete inability to think strategically about what the country needs to keep it moving (they only think as far as the next election). The result has been paralysis and financial constraints applied to major engineering, infrastructure and rolling stock improvement programmes. Politicians are loathe to agree to spend any "public" funds on any project that either (a) isn't guaranteed to deliver a tangible improvement within the term of the current Parliament, or (b) is so grandiose that the benefits won't be seen until well into the next Parliament or even the one after that, so they can threaten the electorate that if they vote the other guys in, they might cancel the project and waste all the money already spent.
I agree that the current network is creaking at the seams, but I don't agree that there's nothing that can be done based around the current infrastructure and shape of the network. Capacity improvements could be achieved in very short order by a programme of platform lengthening and and end to the specification of trains comprised of 2, 3, 4 and 5 carriages. Hell, in many places, the platforms are already long enough to accommodate 12 coach trains, but all they see are inadequate short trains. There should be an end to the mass fascination with multiple unit trains (unless they're through gangwayed and provide an adequate level of comfort for long distance journeys). Bring back loco-haulage and reinstate turnround and release facilities at terminus stations. Look at common practice throughout Europe and the rest of the world. A loco (or two) at the head of a long train when it's busy and a loco at the head of a short train then its less busy (but because the coaches are all compatible and available, they can be added to strengthen the service).
I'm fed up of travelling on Cross Country services that are formed of 2 car multiple units, which are already full when the train pulls in and then subject my ears to the constant drone of an engine beneath my feet. It was a pleasure to use a HST on the Midland Main Line last summer instead of a ghastly Meridian, because I could relax into a soft seat and not be assailed by the constant revving of an overstressed diesel engine below the floor. And don't get me started on the poo-ridden Voyagers.
So, cancel HS2 and spend the money on more proper trains. Thanks.
