Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• david c smith, milton keynes

  Yes, 23 years to build HS2, given modern mechanised methods does seem strange.
  
  Even stranger in our "neck of the woods" is the quoted 4 years needed in order to "de-mothball" the Calvert to Bletchley stretch to restore the through EastWest line Western sectuon, Oxford to Bedford

• Philip Rusell, Carlisle

  If we needed HS2 as badly as many of its fans claim we would not be tacking about 23 years to complete it ,instead it would be about 5 like our Victorian relatives took with virtually no mechanisation or the Chinese do today

• Duncan Fitton, Bury Lancs

  In China railways get built on time and on budget because those who fail to deliver and defraud their Treasury face a prison camp. In this country failure to deliver and cost escaltion is rewarded- eg. NHS IT system. I would back HS2 if everyone from DC, the transport minister , George Osbourne and their civil servants, their LibDem and Labour Shadows, and the directors of every HS2 contractor had their pensions linked to success. Say 1% fine to charity for every billion over £40 billion and for every month late. See how confident they are then.

• Roger Collett, Darlington

  The whole HS2 project would cost a lot less if the talking stopped and someone started to do some real work. The majority of cost overruns are caused by the interminable talk talk talk that goes on in this country. Stop yakking and start doing something.

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  The simple fact is that the Anti HS2 groups are growing more and more desperate as they see legislation moving forward and their cases thrown out by courts and so they resort to even more desperate actions and cling to anything they can.
  
  Remember the recent legislation got a 10 to 1 majority in favour of HS2 with both major parties backing HS2 guaranteeing that a change of government in 2015 won't make a difference!
  
  As for the media well I have seen the same nonsense recycled over and over in facts HS2 has suffered a bad case of the DTs !
  
  However, news yesterday that Coventry is to get a link to Birmingham HS2 station and city centre via a tram extension shows how they have gained from leaving anti lobby and started to ask "what benefits can HS2 do for Coventry?"
  
  A lesson Frank Dobson MP for Camden is clearly not bothered with given how in recent debate he raised not a single point re improvement to Euston Station or its connections which like Coventry would benefit from cross river tram project and longer term Crossrail 2 instead he talked about a few businesses in a nearby street who may have a case but given the thousands of jobs being created along Euston Road ignored major benefits HS2 could bring to that big hole in which Euston sits.

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  Why is the UK so London-centric ? Having lived in Birmingham and Reading where you can get a train to virtually anywhere in the UK without changing trains, I cannot understand why the country is so London obsessed. I do my utmost to avoid it by train. Using the Underground to change trains is a nightmare if you have elderly, disabled or young children. MPs always think about London becuase they work there. But maybe its time (like the BBC who de-camped to Manchester) to build up the Transport systems in the North of the Country. The suggestion that HS2 should start in the North rather than London may well have some merit. It should also be cheaper per mile than building it in the South.

• Gregory Darroch, London

  The principle reasons for the cost of this project going up and up are the legal fees from when the government are being challenged by NIMBY's and those organisations who are doing the work trying to get as much profit as possible from the tax payer.
  
  At the end of the day, we need improved rail services. IF you want to stand on trains for hours on end freel free. I want a seat and I strongly believe that everyone will benefit from a new railway where one train carries the equivalent of what, 800 cars?
  
  Alternatively we could just have a six land motorway where the capacity is greatly less than the railway and then there will be massive congestion when it is widened to 10 lanes. Or perhaps we could all complain about needing a new airport?

• John Walker, Orpington

  The strategic case has not been prooven. First one has to define the strategic objectives, and to date this has not been done. Having defined the objectives one must then show how these objectives are to be met.
  If one thinks that speed is a strategic objective, then I suggest one should be careful.

• David Thrower, Warrington

  It is perfectly legitimate for the Committee to scrutinise HS2 and to maintain a watching brief over this immense and complex project. But there will be no pleasing HS2's opponents, even if the line is built on time, on budget, and used by even more passengers in the long term than the traffic forecasts suggest. The giveaway is in the opponents' title, "Stop HS2". There will be no reasoning with the route's detractors. They have no realistic alternative to create the capacity that will be needed in the later years of this century, and the next. The cost estimates for HS2 allow generously (some would say to excess) for increases, and the traffic forecasts are based upon a "middle view" of the factors that influence demand. We need to maintain a reasoned debate, and the Select Committee will rightly be part of that debate.

• Ray , Birmingham

  The lengthy procedure of the two bills required to have HS 2 built have produced a large volume of correspondence from many different groups in the Press and the Media in general, and such is the power of these groups that journalists talk about the project being controversial, expensive and often express the wish for this project to be abandoned. Poor journalisms often confuses facts and statistics. But sadly those who read those words are often convinced that a railway line can do so much to destroy property and the environment, forgetting at the same time how much more damaging a 6 lane motorway has on that same environment and property.
  
  Reading through the available parliamentary debates, which are available on line, I do not believe that the case to abandon HS2 is proved. In fact the presentation from the professionals such those from Network Rail, Manchester Council and Centro in Birmingham present a powerful argument for its construction even if the route needs perhaps to be made more cost effective to suit the requirements of cost.
  
  It is probably important to develop rolling stock that can run on both types of railway now. A pilot scheme could be to run a service from our major cities to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam and perhaps Directly Operated Railways could take on this challenge.
  
  The cancellation of this option for rail travellers is a regrettable outcome of the Rail Privatisation process and it seems those in the Metropolis, including members of Camden Council see no reason for passengers to continue to change trains in London, and use the tube, taxi, bus or walk to reach St Pancras.
  
  Ray Shill
  
  (I think 'controversial' is a fair label for HS2. 'Expensive', on the other hand, is a matter of opinion. Your point about the confusion of facts and statistics is well taken.--Editor)

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  If StopHS2 et al are so convinced that all big government projects go over budget, why are they backing an upgrading project that went five times over budget the last time we tried it?