Tags
Every so often Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins bile duct overflows and he releases a torrent of vituperative and bombastic nonsense about the HS2 rail project. He’s been doing this on a regular basis for years now. The fact he’s always proved spectacularly wrong and fact-free never stops him as the man clearly believes his own myths and is unashamed by the fact his fictional tirades never age well.
Crewe based blogger Tim Fenton has punctured Jenkins hot air balloon several times in the past. Notably here in 2014 and here in 2015. Sadly, the fact nowadays he’s in the fairy story business rather than real Journalism hasn’t stopped the Guardian publishing him. I’m assuming their Editor no longer cares about trivial things like facts and the truth as clicks are more important. The rubbish Jenkins writes are good enough to generate those as his rants against HS2 are guaranteed to be shared by the projects opponents – even ones whom aren’t natural Guardian readers! It’s a win for the Grauniad and a loss for those who like decent, factual journalism, analysis – and the truth.
Let’s have a look at Jenkins latest fact-free farrago shall we? I’d suggest wearing a peg on your nose whilst doing it as the smell of bullshit is overpowering. It’s entitled “Depleted and unwanted, HS2 hurtles on as Johnson’s £100bn vanity project” – which is a good start as that’s three untruths in the headline and we haven’t even got to the article yet! The first paragraph is no better…
“Britain’s new high-speed railway will not – repeat: not – get to the north of England. It will go back and forth from London to the Midlands and its chief beneficiaries will be London commuters. All else is political spin”
Really? Jenkins seems unaware that contracts for building HS2 Phase 2a from Birmingham to Crewe have already been let. Contractors have already started on preparatory work as Phase 2a gained Royal Assent on the 11th February 2021 after flying through both Houses of Parliament with a huge majority – just as Phase 1 did. Now, what was that about “unwanted”? HS2 has always commanded huge-cross party political support. So much so that the handful of opponents in the Lords didn’t even bother calling for a vote on the Phase 2a bill as they knew they were completely outnumbered.
Oh, and “London Commuters”? Hs2 is a long-distance railway. Like all other long-distance railways that means the vast majority of passengers will be leisure travellers, NOT commuters. The HS2 business case is based on 70% of travellers doing so for leisure. How can that be predicted? Easy, because we know who uses the existing Long-Distance services.
Meanwhile, Jenkins continues to dig a hole…
“This became certain last week as the government’s internal major projects authority declared phase two of the HS2 project, to Manchester and Leeds, effectively dead. While the already-started London-to-Birmingham stretch is still marked at “amber/red” for “successful delivery in doubt”, anything north of Crewe has been designated “unachievable”.
This is complete cobblers of course and will come as real news to people on the leg from Crewe to Manchester (and HS2 Ltd themselves) as the Government announced the timetable for the Phase 2b leg in the Queens Speech at the state opening of Parliament. The bill will be deposited in Parliament next year.
As for this amber/red and ‘unachievable’ nonsense, this is Jenkins failing to understand what the ratings (given by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority) actually mean. For example, we have two ‘unachievable’ Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers floating around right now that the IPA rated red. Oh, and the new Intercity Express Programme (IEP) trains built by Hitachi that are ploughing up and down the East Coast and Great Western main lines? They were rated ‘unachievable’ as well.
What’s next? Oh yes,
“Since HS2 has always been politics-driven – no rail strategy ever gave it priority”
This is more complete bollocks. The origins of HS2 are in several studies looking at the needs for future rail capacity that were carried out by the likes of Network Rail. In fact, it was this study. “Meeting the capacity challenge: The case for new lines” which was published by NR in 2009 that was the basis for HS2. It was the rail industry who established the need for HS2, not politicians.
Next?
“The only way of conveying the scale of Johnson’s vanity in this vanity project is to convey its opportunity cost, a projected £106bn (and rising) over 20 years.”
More cobblers. The cost of HS2 is not a ‘projected’ £106bn. Yet again Jenkins resorts to fiction as he’s just too idle and sure of himself to fact check but he’s not alone in filching figures from others without checking so I’ll cut him some slack. This number has been bandied around an awful lot in the media. That’s because the media is so incestuous as well as lazy. Nicking other people’s copy is endemic. It’s like Chinese whispers and ‘send three and fourpence, the General’s going to a dance’, an error’s circulated, magnified and becomes a ‘fact’. It’s claimed the £106bn is an ‘official’ figure because it was in the Oakervee Review of HS2. There’s just one teeny problem – the actual figure (£106.6bn) was mentioned in the review so that Oakervee could specifically dismiss it! Here’s a link to the Oakervee review. Here’s what Oakervee actually said.
Here’s what Oakervee ‘really’ said about the costs (there’s a range, not a single figure).
So, £80.7 – 87-7bn. Not figures you’ll see the press using as it’s not a single number that’s scary enough!
Jenkins then goes into the standard economic illiteracy about what spending funds for HS2 could do for the NHS, neatly showing he doesn’t understand the fact there’s no pot of money sat in the Treasury labelled ‘For HS2’ that’s waiting to rebadged, that he doesn’t know the difference between operational expenditure and capital expenditure, and thirdly, that Hs2’s funded by borrowing, not taxation. I’ve covered all those points in this blog in the past.
Continuing with his nonsensical claims, Jenkins than says;
“This one train line will consume the equivalent of Britain’s entire projected railway investment budget during its two decades of construction. Even the initial phase to Birmingham, at roughly £70bn, is twice the £40bn cost of the “northern powerhouse” rail system”
Firstly, Phase 1 is budgeted at £40-43bn (see above) £70bn is a number Jenkins has invented. Secondly, No-one knows that the UKs projected rail budget is for the next 20 years as it’s not set that far in advance. Network Rail’s budget is set in 5 year periods, known as ‘Control Periods’. The current one (CP6) runs from 2019-2024. That was set at 47bn. Of course the line between maintenance and ‘investment’ is blurred. For example, is replacing life-expired signalling with an upgraded system maintenance or investment? Here’s a link to the Department of transport’s budget 2019-2020. It makes it clear that the amount spent on Hs2 is dwarfed by what’s spent on the existing national rail network.
Oh, and that doesn’t include what others (like the Welsh and Scottish Governments, or train builders) invest in the railways either. Jenkin’s claim is simply more spherical objects..
Jenkin’s diatribe of nonsense continues with this tosh.
“Meanwhile arguments continue over the trains themselves. They are not planned to tilt, which means that any time saved on a new track to Birmingham will be lost on winding track further north. A re-signalled King’s Cross line could even get to Scotland faster. HS2 is more a taxpayer-funded theme park ride”.
*Sigh*. Where to start on this rubbish? 1. HS2’s already being built North of Birmingham to Crewe. 2. The trains don’t need to tilt to keep time as the new Hitachi Class 802s operated by Transpennine Express have already proved, (technology has moved on) plus Network Rail are proposing some track upgrades on the route to Scotland anyway. 3. Re-signalling The East Coast won’t speed it up in any meaningful way as you’d need to close all the level and foot crossings which would cost a fortune and you still wouldn’t get HS2 speed – plus – you’d devastate capacity on the route by running faster trains! This crucial factor is missed by armchair experts like Jenkins. Speed up trains on the existing main lines which are already overflowing with services and you reduce capacity as slower trains have to be ditched from the timetable to leave room for the faster ones. It’s the raison d’être for HS2, by removing those non-stop high-speed services you free up large chunks of capacity on the existing network. Jenkins ignores that crucial point because it doesn’t fit his narrative. As for the final tosh about ‘taxpayer funded’ – we’ve been over this until we’re blue in the face. HS2 is funded by borrowing against future GDP increases, not taxation!
Jenkin’s continues with his ‘vanity project’ tosh with this statement;
“What is intriguing is how HS2 has mutated from from a transport project to political machismo – “infrastructure” that is good in itself.”
Trying to label HS2 as a ‘Johnson’ project simply won’t wash – because by the time HS2 opens Johnson (hopefully) will be long gone. HS2’s been in development for over 11 years. In that time we’ve had Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Teresa May and Boris Johnson premierships. The project was kicked off by a Labour Government, taken forward by a Coalition Government and now construction’s started under a Tory Government. It’s hard to think of many schemes as apolitical as HS2. By the time the whole project’s completed that will be nearer 25 years. Who know who’ll be the Prime Minister cutting the tape when the first phase opens in 2029!
Jenkin’s final canard is this, the old “Hs2 is stealing your investment money”
“(Andy Burnham) will now find Birmingham blessed with cash that might have renovated his dire northern powerhouse rail network three times over – money he may now never see”
Playing regional mayors off against each other I see. It won’t wash. That money comes from Whitehall anyway. They make the investment choices as funding powers and budgets haven’t been devolved by the Government – much to the North’s annoyance – and that’s not exclusively to do with Burnham either. The Government set up Transport for the North but didn’t give it control of its budget. This is a Government decision but it’s nothing to do with HS2 which has a separate funding stream. Still, facts eh? You’ll never get ’em from Jenkins!
No doubt Jenkins latest pile of cobblers will keep the Grauniad happy as it’s done it’s job creating clicks and comments. It won’t stop HS2 in the slightest of course, the only effect it will have in the long term is to continue the downwards trajectory of the reputation of English journalism. Next time you see a Jenkins article on HS2, save yourself some time and file it straight in the bin…
I’ve a favour to ask…
If you enjoy reading this blog, please click on an advert or two. You don’t have to buy anything you don’t want to of course (although if you did find something that tickled your fancy that would be fab!), but the revenue from them helps to cover some of the cost of maintaining this site – and right now (because of Covid), us freelances need all the help that we can get. Remember, 99% of the pictures used in my blogs can be purchased as prints from my other website – https://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/
Thank you!
Paul Bigland 
Good analysis, though a few typos I think. This one seems to have inverted the meaning:
“It makes it clear that the amount spent on the national rail network is dwarfed by what’s spent on HS2”
I presume that’s meant to read: “…the amount spent on the national rail network dwarfs what’s spent on HS2”, as the picture makes clear.
Hi Adrian, thanks for pointing out that howler – it’s been corrected, as have all the typo’s – I hope! This is the problem of being your own ‘subbie’ – you read what you meant to write, not what you’ve actually written….
Paul, in responding to Jenkins’ argument that HS2 will suck all potential investment out of the existing network over the period of its construction, you write of the published figures: “It makes it clear that the amount spent on the national rail network is dwarfed by what’s spent on HS2,” which appears to support Jenkins.
However, looking at the page you reproduce, it shows the exact opposite: £12,628m for Network Rail, compared to £2,912 for “High speed Rail, including HS2”. Was this what you meant to write?
What I find puzzling about Jenkins’ vanity project is that if the case against HS2 is really as overwhelming as he suggests, you wonder why he feels the need to make stuff up. For example, on the subject of connectivity, he states that Curzon Street Station will be a mile from New Street. Actually, from the Western exit most passengers are likely to use, it’s about 500 yards – less than a third of a mile. Anyone who can’t, or chooses not to, walk will be able to catch a tram under the HS2 platforms which will deliver them door-to-door.
Obviously, Jenkins doesn’t mention Moor Street Station, which is so close to Curzon Street that they will effectively be one station. It offers frequent stopping services on the lines to Leamington and Stratford-upon-Avon and, in the other direction, Kidderminster and Worcester. A lot of potential HS2 customers live along those corridors.
Again, Jenkins criticises Euston as the southern terminus, sneering that it is not even connected to Crossrail. He must know perfectly well that all trains will stop at Old Oak Common, which offers connections not only to Crossrail but Heathrow and the Great Western main line.
The proposed expansion of Birmingham Moor Street illustrates how HS2 is not only not preventing investment in the existing network but is actually stimulating it. Work has just started at the end of my road to build a new station in Moseley, one of three on the currently freight (and long-distance passenger) only Camp Hill Line.
Initially, infrequent trains on this line will be squeezed into New Street, but when the Midlands Rail Hub project is delivered they will be diverted into Moor Street, which will combine with Curzon Street to create a crucial regional hub. Finally, the removal of even one non-stop service on the crowded Birmingham-Coventry route post-HS2 will enable a doubling of services to stations along the line.
There is a lot of transformative vision around HS2 which does not show up in the straw railway its haters prefer to attack.
Hi Terry, In updated versions of that blog I’ve corrected a typo which led to the misleading impression. It take a while for some caches to catch up with that and display the newer version. I agree with your analysis, there’s so other benefits of HS2 to Birmingham and the Midlands that Jenkins ignores (either through ignorance or the fact they don’t fit his narrative) that it’s deeply frustrating.
There’s a couple of replies to Simon Jenkins article in the Letters section. A positive one from Jim Steer, Director, High Speed Rail Group, and a not so positive one from Mark Sullivan, Chair, Campaign to Protect Rural England, West Midlands Region.
https://bit.ly/3CeJzam
Hi Helen. Yes, I noted those, the reply from Jim is very good and to the point. The CPRE one shows the writer doesn’t even understand why we’re building HS2 in the first place – capacity.
Does anyone have a link to ARUPs’ proposals?
A quick search only produces information about the redevelopment of the upstairs part of New Street, including the new Shopping centre. Which as we all know, had no effect on the capacity problems downstairs.
That’s a good question Helen, I’m not aware of any serious proposal to build a Berlin Hauptbahnhof style station in Birmingham. It would be a complete non-starter of course, it’s people like the CPRE grasping at imaginary straws rather then dealing with the real world.
Hi Paul, my line of thinking was that if ARUP proposed something, (however “Pie in the Sky”) they would want to publicise it?
Indeed, which is why it’s surprising there’s nothing online…
Excellent review of a poor article by Jenkins and an aberration in The Guardian, which I, for one, expect to be more about the truth rather than feeding the prejudices of a certain section of the readership. As always, not only is your article worth reading, but the comments above add to the discussion.
A couple of years ago the Guardian invited readers to submit their own reports on things the MSM missed (broadening its reach or something like that). An Edinburgh local of no known provenance submitted one on Edinburgh trams; duly published. As you’ve guessed, it was full of inaccuracies.
Underneath it was the Guardian spiel ‘please give us money to maintain our high-quality journalism’. Needless to say I declined. And have done so ever since.
Not sure that large Parliamentary majorities necessarily mean that it is ‘wanted’ by the vast majority of the public, any poll I’ve ever seen suggests a distinct lack of enthusiasm……
The problem with such polls is they never have a representative sample in the way of population size, most if not all rarely attract more than a few thousand returns. And Anti’s hunt them down and encourage their own to vote so they can be described as loaded at best.
But we have had one poll recently that shows the vast majority are uninterested either way, it’s called a general election. If HS2 was truly not wanted by the majority it would have been a much bigger factor in that election.
Indeed. It’s funny how people keep voting for political parties that commit to building HS2, isn’t it? It’s almost like they have other, more pressing concerns – a fact never reflected in opinion polls – only elections.
Opinion polls are worse than useless at gauging opinion on most things, especially infrastructure projects like HS2. The expression “so, what are you going to do about it?” is never more apt. People might ‘oppose’ something in an opinion poll, but what the hell does that mean in reality? Does it change the way they vote? Does it mean they become an activist and campaigner? No. It just means they’ve grumbled in a poll. It means nothing. That fact of life is why the anti HS2 ‘campaign’ was never going to get anywhere.
Hmm, you’re right in the fact that properly conducted opinion polls (not the ones that can be manipulated either way) don’t change a thing and that’s not the point of them anyway but they do what they say – give an indication of what people think and most people are negative about HS2. You don’t agree with them but it is what it is.
Name one “properly conducted” poll that has a demonstrably significant number of returns to render it clearly representative of the wider population.
Meanwhile look at the numbers following or supporting the Anti campaign?? Even with old Packham’s celebrity magic his petition stalled at 155,000, less than 1 in 400 of the population.
No, ‘most’ people aren’t negative. You’re adding the don’t knows to the oppose votes. The point is, national infrastructure projects are not beauty contests or the X-Factor. What the public ‘think’ matters not. These projects are (quite rightly) decided on by Government and Parliament.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-high-speed-rail-hs2?crossBreak=abc1&period=all
Properly conducted by a reputable company and only done a couple of months ago.
Phil/Paul, you will doubtless find a way to twist this so that although this shows a majority that oppose HS2 (once you strip out the don’t knows and the undecideds) what it really means is that everyone loves HS2!!
I long ago came to the conclusion that HS2 discussions, whether on here, Simon Jenkins, the environmental lobby, HS2 Ltd themselves are always more about the underlying opinion and agenda of the writer rather than actual facts. Everyone is usually a bit right but not as much as they think they are.
‘Twisting’ is stripping out ‘don’t knows’ (a valid opinion) from the 100% to rebalance the figures in your favour! It’s hilarious, but it does show why the anti HS2 campaign was always so useless. You don’t like facts, so you come up with Trumpian ‘alternative facts’! You don’t like figures, so you fiddle ’em. But, at the end of the day the only people you fool are yourselves. And all for what? No-one cares what these opinion polls say (whatever way they swing). The only polls that matter have ballot boxes at the end of them….
What about this one?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-high-speed-rail-hs2
Properly conducted two months ago by a reputable company and once all the don’t knows and undecideds are removed there are more people opposed to than supportive of HS2,
And? What was the question asked? No-one cares what the results are, it’s an opinion poll. It’s meaningless, do these people have any depth of understanding of the subject that gives their opinions weight? No. Will they act on their opinions? No. Will they change the way they vote at elections because of their opinion? No – as we’ve seen demonstrated in every election since 2010. This is why you’re wasting your time with opinion polls. They change nothing.
Couldn’t agree more but you said that ‘No, ‘most’ people aren’t negative’ which isn’t correct!
If you’re going to lay into Simon Jenkins for writing ‘tosh’, I would have thought you need to be careful that everything you say is correct that’s all.
Have a good Sunday, keep blogging – even the annoying pro-HS2 ones (which is the only reason I read it anyway), it’s a very minor and pointless argument we’ve had here, the bloody thing is going through my farm whether I like it or not…..
Err, the poll you yourself posted shows that that statement is in fact correct. Most people either support HS2 to some degree, don’t know or are neutral (61%), which means most people aren’t opposed (“aren’t negative”).
I notice that Simon Jenkins has had another rant about HS2. Albeit about something that is as yet unconfirmed.
https://bit.ly/3Dq9sV3