HS2 is not the solution to London’s housing crisis or the lack of rail links to the North

They had leaves on the line in the North of England last week, and the trains were halted. On a weekday, when thousands of commuters were trying to get to work, college and school; let alone the other, vast number of folk who thought they they would see the railway as their most convenient form of travel.

Because it was in the North, the stoppage raised barely a glimmer of interest in the South. If it had happened in Kent or Surrey, to trains into London Bridge or Waterloo, all hell would have broken loose. Instead, it was just another day of misery, to go with the other numerous days lost, including when they changed the timetable, and the services across the North could not cope.

Meanwhile, the Government is pressing ahead with a £56bn plan to develop HS2. Will the new high-speed link between London and the North-West change any of this? Will it improve things? Not at all. Will it make a difference that justifies such vast expenditure? Hardly. Is it a grotesque example of ministerial machismo, of gesture politics, of a total inability to see the wood for the trees? You bet it is.

The trains I’m talking about, the ones that were cancelled, were mostly on the branch lines, on the routes that people use day in, day out - not the West Coast Line, which already has a fast, comfortable service. In my lifetime, since growing up in Cumbria, and travelling to and from London to visit family, journey times have plummeted. On the main, trunk route - not on the secondary ones. This is where the problem lies, where the service is creaking.

Cutting several minutes off the London to Manchester service does not matter a h’apporth. What would boost the experience immeasurably there would be to ensure that wifi works all the way, that a mobile signal is not lost. But that, too, is not what HS2 is about.

Already, there is talk by those on the inside that the projected costs are soaring. The “main works civil contracts” on the London to Birmingham section, reports The Sunday Times, are “several billion pounds” over the official budget of £6.6bn. That’s before any earth is turned, and all manner of unseen, below ground problems are discovered.

Conscious of a final bill that could spiral out of control, and being seen to get a grip, ministers are demanding that instead of sanctioning extra expenditure, costs are being renegotiated, to stick to the budgeted figure. This, in turn, has led to delays, as more design and development is required, and specifications redrawn. Again, the word is that the vast project - the country’s biggest and most demanding infrastructure scheme - is likely to be more than a year behind schedule.

Part of the issue here is that mooted figures are proving inaccurate, the result, apparently of an insistence that the new railway meets a deadline for the beginning of services, of 2026.

The thinking behind this demand, that Britain is sick and tired of major capital constructions that seem to take forever to reach fulfilment (runway expansion of Heathrow was first raised exactly 50 years ago) is laudable. But put that together with a scheme that is huge and complex, and it can become a recipe for chaos. And that’s without HS2 being unnecessary in the first place.

This is what ministers should realise: that £56bn buys you an awful lot of terribly needed enhancements, for instance to existing country and suburban services, and to digitalisation.

There is a subtext, of course, to HS2 - one that is hardly ever raised, let alone publicly admitted. And it is that the 250mph railway has another purpose, beyond rushing passengers from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. It is that the faster railway makes commuting from Birmingham in particular all that more manageable. House prices in the West Midlands are so much cheaper than in the South-East. Public sector workers in essential occupations, in sectors like the NHS and education, will be able to afford to commute from Brum. HS2, you see, is aimed in part at alleviating London’s growing housing crisis. Which makes it a very expensive solution indeed.

When confronted with the news of the overruns and delay, the Department for Transport said it would not comment on speculation. “Our priority is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.”

Yes, but does the overall project seriously provide value for money?

Ministers have the ability to stop it in its tracks, to divert the investment elsewhere. Of course, that would involve a loss of pride. There would be some dismay in the North, but not as much as might be expected - particularly if the money was spent on other local, much-needed advancements. Perhaps they should test attitudes towards the new service before it's too late.

For there are warning lights flashing all over this. An awful lot of cash is being committed to something for which there is little demand. Getting from A to B may become quicker, but B to C will be just as slow – and it’s the B to C that is used by so many people every day, that ceased to operate last week and will do so again, even with HS2.

Chris Blackhurst is a former editor of The Independent, and director of C|T|F Partners, the campaigns, strategic, crisis and reputational, communications advisory firm