HS2: ‘There is still no approved scheme for bringing the railway into Euston’

• IT is a pity that neither the chancellor nor the leader of the opposition seems able to see through the false propaganda continually fed to them by HS2 Limited.

The superficially attractive argument that we need to get on with major schemes once they are approved ignores the fact that HS2 fails completely to deliver its stated aims.

This is why opposition to it has continued long after parliamentary approval of a scheme which its promoters now acknowledge cannot be built in the form proposed.

The scheme does nothing for capacity. It was designed for speed, hence the name. Capacity is not increased by tearing through the countryside without stopping and capacity on existing lines will not be released once the cities excluded from HS2 (Coventry, Wolverhampton, Stoke, Wakefield) see their existing services threatened.

All the successful rail schemes of the past 50 years involve avoiding termini in central locations by linking existing lines across the city. Thameslink, the Elizabeth line, London Overground Orbital, Smethwick Galton Bridge and the Manchester Tram are exemplary instances of how to enhance capacity at much lower cost per mile than high speed rail. It makes no sense to recreate a terminal station at Curzon Street, which was closed for good reason long before the misguided cuts inspired by Richard Beeching.

It is all very well to say rail schemes should not compete with one another, but the reality is that money is in short supply and the east-west links*, which would be needed to make anything of HS2, and which are needed anyway, could be completed far more quickly and are being stifled by the resources taken from them by the need to sustain HS2.

There is still no approved scheme for bringing the railway into Euston. The idea that any problem can be surmounted by engineering is bunkum.

You cannot get a quart into a pint pot and there is finite space consumed by a myriad of tube lines, sewers, rivers and public utilities. The “birdcage” design on which parliamentary approval was granted has long since been abandoned.

If you want to address capacity in London, where it is clearly still needed despite the effects of Covid-19, you would reinstate the lost track at Camden Road instead of wasting money on a walkway that goes hardly anywhere.

Not only would it meet a clear demand for passenger movements it would facilitate greater movement of freight by rail in pursuit of the objectives of the mayor’s London Plan.

ANDREW BOSI, N1