Tags
Today the social and mainstream media are full of a man and his supposed ‘report’ on HS2. Lord Tony Berkeley, a long-time opponent of HS2 has appeared on TV to push his ‘alternative’ to the Oakervee review on HS2 – the one he was the Deputy Chairman of but who was never going to agree with because he was very much in a minority. In fact, the report should be subtitled “Me, myself, I”…
His interview on Sky’s ‘Sophy Ridge on Sunday’ show was a classic example of saying nothing of substance whilst pretending you have. His claims were so heavily caveated they were worthless. Here’s a couple of examples. “My report suggests that the project is completely out of control” Well, no equivocation there then! He then goes on to say that HS2 “doesn’t benefit the North and Midlands in the way that upgrading existing lines could”. Wait, what?
Perhaps being appointed to the Lords means that you instantly start suffering from senility and memory loss, as Berkeley (despite all his years as Chair of the Railfreight Group) has mysteriously forgotten that we spent £9bn upgrading the West Coast Main Line just 15 years ago! Because, whichever way you look at Berkeley’s claim, it’s brass-necked, weapons-grade bollocks and Berkeley knows it, as do all the people who’ve worked on HS2 and the alternatives to providing the capacity the railways need to get modal shift from road to rail from air and road and tackle climate change. So why is he peddling such untruths? What’s his (new) agenda, other than that as a man scorned for coming up with his own daft versions of HS2 stations in London (the ridiculous claim that you could build an underground HS2 station at Euston).
There’s more. Later in the interview, after accusing everyone of “fiddling the figures” on HS2. Berkeley says that “I believe Parliament’s been misled” Then goes on to say “I believe the figure that’s right is about £107bn”. He then admits under questioning that “everything’s an estimate” but pulls another rabbit out of the hat by saying “this project is probably 2-3 times overbudget before the construction’s even started”.
Listening to Berkely is like going to a ‘happy clappy’ Evangelical church, only the amount of times you here “I believe” is probably less in the Church!
Where’s the evidence for any of these claims? It’s never been published, it’s certainly never been peer-reviewed. This is very much a one-man and his dog ‘report’ (the dog being Michael Byng, who Berkeley follows like the proverbial).
In short, we have lots of suggestions, and beliefs, but sod-all verifiable facts. Perhaps I can get Sky news to interview me because I ‘believe’ the moon’s made of green cheese and that the earth’s actually flat – as both claims have as much validity as Berkeley’s, because – at the end of the day – what’s Berkeley said that’s new, or ‘news’? Nothing. This is simply a rehash of claims he’s been making for months.
In a few days time all the froth around this supposed ‘report’ will die down. Already a Government Minister (OK, it’s Dominic Raab, but you can’t have everything) has poured cold-water on the idea the Government are taking this seriously in this interview.
Once the fog has cleared, all that will be left is the smoke and smell from Berkeley’s burning bridges…
UPDATE (16.55).
It seems Berkeley has published his report, which can be found here. I’ve not had chance to read it all yet, merely his summary, which is (quite frankly) bonkers and makes some classic errors. According to Berkeley, we don’t need phase 2b of HS2. All we have to do is re-instate old sections of four -track railway and Bob’s your Uncle!
This completely ignores several important issues.
1. In many cases that’s impossible as the formations have been built on since the lines were reduced to two tracks. To do so would be horrendously expensive and it wouldn’t raise line speeds one bit. We return the network to ‘pre-Beeching’ – as if that’s the answer to future needs! No speed increases, no curing bottlenecks, no grade separated junctions – just put it back like it was in the early 1960s. It’s sort of classic nostalgia, lack of ambition and backward thinking that’s bedevilling this country.
2. All it would do is replicate the problem we have now – mixed traffic, mixed speed railways that are funnelled through the same old chokepoints! How would it make the railways more attractive to passengers and get the sort of modal shift we need? He’s no answer.
3. How much extra capacity would this add? Berkeley has no answer.
4. It completely ignores why we’re building HS2 in the first place, to free up capacity on the existing network by running high-speed, intercity services on their own lines, this removing the problem of them eating up capacity on the existing network and freeing up the space for more regional, local and freight services. Berkeley has decided we don’t need HS2 then tried to cobble together a series of spurious justifications for that conclusion.
I’ll go through his full report later in the week when I have time. Right now it’s painfully obvious that it’s just the same opinionated, fact-free nonsense as his interviews, full of “I believe”, “I consider”, “I conclude”, “I think” – it’s all about him and no-one else. He’s right and everybody else is wrong, from top to bottom. It’s a solo work of real egotism. What does Berkeley actually *know*, or even prove? As his report shows, very little – at all. It’s one man’s supposition. Actually, belay that – it’s two, because there’s two strings to this report that can be summed up thus, what ‘Berkeley believes’ and what ‘Michael Byng sez’…
Paul Bigland 
Has anyone had sight of Lord Berkeley’s report..? I can only find newspapers and TV outlets reporting it “second hand.” If anyone has link, it would be appreciated. TIA
I doubt his ‘report’ will ever see the light of day, because if all it contains is what he’s claimed in his interviews, it’s a complete waste of time that will get absolutely savaged by informed commentators.
There is a copy of it available and it’s linked over on the HS2 Facebook page via a Twitter link to Garth Dennis, however it’s a bit of a pain to download. I’ve had a quick read, but Gareth Dennis is already pulling it apart and will probably do a number on it in the next few days. The alternatives section made me laugh as it’s the usual mish mash of previously deconstructed schemes. The 4 track Rugby Coventry scheme is there, a scheme that while it add some capacity comes with large cost and impacts. And there is mention of Stations like Tring and Cheddington down the south end of the WCML and it’s seems to be suggesting closing them although I might have misunderstood there, but I’m not sure what else you could do there?? Another suggestion is flying junctions at Hanslope and Cheddington, but both these schemes would require land beyond the railway boundary and would cause significant disruption during the works. Start to add all these schemes up and I suspect costs will rise beyond what most would expect, but that the benefits overall would fall short.
The trouble is we live in a post-truth age. Raab has been shown on TV claiming 20,000 is larger than 21,000 when referring to police numbers. I suspect that this “report” will influence things, especially when promoted by far-right commentators like Ridge (she suggested “re-education camps” for Remain voters in her newspaper column a couple of years ago).
I’m still no more than 50% convinced that HS2 won’t get cancelled. Not because it doesn’t make sense, but because this is a rubbish, dying little country that can’t do anything that takes longer then 2 weeks. I want to be proved wrong, but the cynic in me says that facts and science are wasted on most people and all politicians.
I am a farmer with HS2 going through my farm so have considerable experience of dealing with HS2 Ltd. Regardless of the benefits of the scheme (which as a regular reader of your blog I do understand up to a point) HS2 are totally inept, wasteful and inefficient at doing anything. There’s not enough competence in the organisation to get it built without blowing mind boggling amounts of taxpayers money on it. Those like yourself who support the project ought to look more thoroughly at how it is being undertaken. Blindly cheerleading and dismissing anyone who doesn’t agree it’s all going wonderfully as a ‘nimby’ will eventually come back to bite you. If they ever get it built it will doubtless be an asset to the country (but of course so many other things would be much more so) but at what point do you have to say the benefits are just not worth what’s it’s going to cost? I would be delighted to show you round my local area so you can get a better idea of what’s happening – as a taxpayer it’s frightening.
Facts sometimes hurt, and the fact is, every Stop HS2 petition since 2010 has demonstrated empirically that the vast majority of the tiny group of people who oppose HS” are (in fact) Nimbys who live on the route. It’s no use people saying ‘but we’re not Nimbys’ when the evidence proves otherwise.
As for the cost of HS2. We’ve heard those oppose it throw made-up numbers around like confetti. Since 2010 we’ve heard various people swear blind that HS2 will cost 80, 100, 103, 106, 123, 143, 150, 200 and even 250bn. After being questioned, even Berkeley had to admit his number is just a guess! All of this misses the point entirely, which is not the cost of HS2, but the cost of doing nothing and NOT building HS2. The cost of rail gridlock, the cost of damage to the economy that’ll cause, the cost of any alternative (more motorways) and the cost to the environment as without HS2 we simply won’t have the rail capacity to get modal shift from air and road to tackle not just a UK issue but a global one – Climate Change. All the things those opposed to HS2 simply don’t want to talk about because they have no credible alternatives.
Yes. HS2 will adversely affect some people. But then any modern infrastructure on the scale of HS2 will, it’s unavoidable. But that is no reason not to do it as by that logic we’d still be living in caves.
Calling for HS2 to be stopped is futile, because you have no credible alternatives. Instead of wasting their time and energy people should be directing their efforts to ensuring HS2 Ltd meet its obligations.
” HS2 are totally inept, wasteful and inefficient at doing anything. There’s not enough competence in the organisation to get it built without blowing mind boggling amounts of taxpayers money on it.” – This is something I’ve heard before. HS2 is an essential piece of infrastructure, it’s just that Britain is rubbish at building anything thanks (largely) to our piss-poor politicians. The best thing we could do is hand the management to the French or Chinese, it would get built far more effectively.
The question is, since British management is incompetent, do we simply stop building infrastructure? Can the country survive if we decide to stagnate?
It’s a canard that suits a certain agenda and narrative, nothing more. You’ll hear it in almost every country about any large infrastructure project, especially if it’s a public works project. It’s not unique to the UK.
I think everyone becomes a ‘nimby’ if it directly affects them, I bet if a nuclear power station was proposed at the bottom of your garden you’d be against it. Those affected are then most likely to try and stop it because they have more skin in the game than everyone else so although technically ‘nimbys’ they also might be right!! It’s ridiculous (although quite entertaining) for you to imply that because StopHS2 petitions always flop that the majority of the country support HS2. In February 2019 a ComRes poll for Dispatches showed 12% of the public feel that HS2 represents good value for taxpayers’ money. They are also more than twice as likely to want the project scrapped than not (43% vs. 20%) so it doesn’t get much love. Whether or not it was ever a good idea or not in the first place or whether something more cost effective could have been built instead to solve the problems you outline is now pretty irrelevant anyway. It will get built now whatever, it’s gone too far to cancel, we’re one of the lucky ones who’s been (mainly) paid out so although I would still prefer it cancelled so all the hassle goes away and I can get my land back I am realistic. However pro-HS2 people like you in the rail industry should have a duty both as taxpayers and to taxpayers to hold HS2 Ltd to account so at least it is built as cost effectively as possible. My offer to open your eyes still stands!!
The bizarre thing about Nimbys is that because something impinges on them, they think they should have the final say and veto over something. HS2 is a vital national infrastructure project that benefits the whole of the UK. Why on earth should it (or any similar project) be stopped because it affects a tiny number of people who then object to it?
Re ‘everybody’s a NIMBY. Absolutely not. In past few years a large housing and industrial estate has (and is) being built 1/4 mile from me. During the day we’d often have the noise of piles being sunk. Did I object to it? No, because it’s bringing jobs to the area and the occupants will be paying Council tax and spending money in the community they’ll become part of. The inconvenience (such as it was) is temporary. I could see the bigger picture.
As for opinion polls, it’s always amused me by the way HS2 antis cling to them, not understanding that they’re worthless in these situations. The answers you get are almost always uninformed as you’re simplifying often complex questions into binary choices. Most people who’ll express an opinion haven’t got a clue about HS2 or what it’s for. Naturally conservative when it comes to tax spending (unless it’s on the NHS) they’ll invariably say ‘no’. Do these polls matter? No, because there’s another thing HS2 antis have never understood. Someone may say they ‘oppose’ HS2 to an opinion poll, but they’re not going to do a damned thing about it. They’re not going to protest, they’re not going to write to their MP and they’re certainly not going to change their vote in an election because of it!
This is a Parliamentary democracy, not the X-Factor. MPs make these decisions, not a 1000 people surveyed for an opinion poll.
As for holding HS2 ‘to account’. The project is under greater scrutiny than almost any other major infrastructure project, and I and my colleagues are doing exactly that. We’ll continue to point out the real reasons for increasing costs (such as the transfer of risk from DfT to Contractors) and highlight problems. At the same time we will also expose the outright lies and spin from people like Stop Hs2’s Joe Rukin and the porkies Chris Packham’s been telling (the greatest deforestation since WW1? Utter cobblers).
What would I really learn from visiting you? Seriously? I’ve watched hours of petitioning hearing on both phase 1 and 2a. I’ve heard the views (and difficulties) petitioners have experienced and I’ve heard detailed arguments from the other side. Again, all these things are already in the public domain. Local newspapers often carry stories (often half-truths when you look at the law and hear from the other side) about such issues.
If those genuinely affected want to hold HS2 to ‘account’, then it’s time they ditched their support for the likes of Rukin (whose lies are doing them no favours at all) and worked together to present true and accurate accounts of genuine problems with HS2 to the media and to the ombudsmen, not scare stories. Forget publicity seeking ‘celebrity environmentalists’ too. Get yourselves together and get someone impartial to speak for you. Someone who will tell the truth, not embellish it.
Stop HS2 is dead. It’s time to deal with that fact. Work with others to get the best mitigation and get the project delivered with the least impact and best outcomes for everyone.
That’s a good, well reasoned reply. Whilst not agreeing with everything you make some decent points which is probably why I find your blogs so readable (even though at times I’m reading them with gritted teeth!).
Chris Packham StopHS2 and Joe Rukin certainly don’t speak on my behalf, I’ve never had or particularly want anything to do with any of them, we’re NFU members, their HS2 team plus our land agents are way more effective in trying to sort HS2 out. Equally ‘antis’ don’t have the monopoly in talking nonsense, in my experience there’s no shortage from all sides
‘As for holding HS2 ‘to account’. The project is under greater scrutiny than almost any other major infrastructure project, and I and my colleagues are doing exactly that. We’ll continue to point out the real reasons for increasing costs (such as the transfer of risk from DfT to Contractors) and highlight problems’
I hope you’re right about the above, I haven’t seen much evidence of it in your blogs to be honest but I’ll take your word for it, they need rail industry figures like you to keep holding their feet to the flames. After all it’s all our taxes they’re not spending very efficiently or effectively.
Thanks for the kind words about my blog! I try to make it as accessible and readable as possible – even if you don’t always agree with what I’m saying. I’m glad to hear that not everyone is taken in by the likes of Packham and Rukin. I believe Rukin has done a lot of damage. Not much to HS2 admittedly, but to ordinary people who he and his ilk have scared half to death and made life unnecessarily stressful for with their dire predictions of the effects HS2 will have on the countryside and villages. To listen to them you would think this was the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse coming visiting, not just men (and women) building a railway. One only has to look at HS1 in Kent (or at Norton Bridge in Staffs) to see the reality, not the spin. The scars soon heal.
I suspect that as someone who actually works the land you’re made of more pragmatic stuff and I’m glad to hear you’ve the backing of an experienced union like the NFU which can access the expert support and help that you need.
I say HS2 is under greater scrutiny because, as a public works project that’s answerable to Parliament it is subject to many more layers of oversight than if it was a privately funded and supervised project. Information has to be supplied to Parliament on a regular basis and the project is subject to examination by the Commons, the Lords, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and several other Parliamentary Committees like the Transport Select Committee. If people have complaints they have several different was of pursuing them, including through Ombudsmen and their local MPs. OK, some MPs are pretty useless, but as they’re not the only avenue…
HS2 Ltd also have to be transparent about costs and budgets and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, although this route has sadly been abused by many antis who’ve clogged up the system with frivolous requests, partly as fishing expeditions and partly as a way of adding costs to the project in the vain hope of making it more expensive so that it’ll be cancelled.
Sadly, a lot of the mainstream media doesn’t understand HS2 and has no idea how to report it correctly, so wastes a lot of time regurgitating spin from the likes of Rukin, which just leads to more false impressions. There’s also a section of the right-wing press who’ll run any old scare story as part of their wider political agenda (think Andrew Gilligan and the Telegraph).The specialist media however, so a better, more informed job, which is why you’ll find more balanced views in the construction and rail industry press. I’m not a great fan of some of the local rags reporting on HS2 from a local or ‘human interest’ side as they tend to publish stuff without asking any pertinent questions as they don’t want to rock the boat and alienate local readers. Some of the newspapers in the Chilterns on phase 1 are classic examples of this.
But, it’s in the public and national interest that HS2 is scrutinised and held to account. If things can be improved, they must be. The company is not beyond reproach. As a huge quasi-government body it can be bureaucratic and slow to react. In some way it’s the worst of both worlds as it’s not free of Government interference in the way a private company is, but then it’s subject to far more scrutiny because of it. It cannot be fully commercial and it’s subject to some arcane Civil Service practices that the private sector isn’t.
I believe it’s incumbent on us all to try and deliver the benefits HS2 can bring. If we’re going to tackle transport Co2 emissions to slow down Climate Change we desperately need HS2. It’s in everybody’s interests (especially those dependent on the land). In the meantime, I and others will continue to be critical friends of HS2. Let’s hope the politicians stop playing politics and just get on with it now.
All the best.
As I’m unfamiliar with the lineside geography between Rugby and Coventry/Birmingham,. Could someone please explain why, Four tracking is only seen as desirable between Rugby and Coventry, and not all the way to Birmingham?
Especially since the Wolverhampton to Coventry locals, and Cross Country, get added to the mix from Coventry onwards.
The line would require four tracking all the way to Birmingham and bearing in mind additional traffic joins at Coventry from Leamington it’s actually the section north of Coventry that needs four tracking first. I know the Rugby to Birmingham line very well and it’s fair to say that the number of impacts from 4 tracking the section would be up there with the whole of HS2 as the Rugby to Coventry route runs through a number of dense urban areas and has a number of woods and ecological areas along its route.
I can quite understand that. However my question was more aimed at the reasoning, behind Lord Berkeley only suggesting Four tracking, between Rugby and Coventry. When as you quite rightly point out, it’s between Coventry and Birmingham that should take priority. Assuming that’s been deemed to be, a better solution to the problem.
And that’s the issue with a lot of the Lord Berkeley Report, once you start to look at the detail it all starts to unravel. Of course the question has to be asked if you 4 track Rugby to Coventry you have 8 lines north of Rugby, 4 on the Coventry line and 4 on the Trent Valley Line yet only 4 south of Rugby, two of which go the slightly longer and slower way round via Northampton. So where do you squeeze in the extra traffic south of Rugby?? Do you add two tracks all the way to Euston to give 6 tracks or reopen the old GC, both options having massive impacts all their own. And let’s not forget the old GC is a heavily used commuter route south of Aylesbury. A simple google map exercise of both routes gives a flavour of the impacts.
Whilst I haven’t got round to reading the report. Surely he backs up his suggestions with evidence. To explain how he came to the conclusions, and how his recommendations would solve the problems he’s identified? All of coarse in preference, to those that HS2 aims to solve.
After all, surely if someone is going to take the time to compile a minority report. They should also take the time, to explain why their recommendations, are better than those in the official report.
Or am I missing something?
It would certainly pay you to have a read of the report. All I can say is it makes no sense overall to me as a working railwayman and seems to have be written in a hurry just to put something on the table in opposition to HS2. Whilst some of the suggestions in it solve issues at points on the existing network they are not connected in a coherent way and in some cases just cause problems elsewhere which would then need further funding.