Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Hammond accused of HS2 manipulation

Transport secretary Philip Hammond has been accused of manipulating the High Speed Two (HS2) public consultation after he contacted rail employees, asking them to support the project and respond to the consultation.

In a statement published on Friday on East Midlands Trains’ staff intranet, Hammond urged employees of the company to respond to the consultation before it ends this Friday.

In the 300-word statement, Hammond also argued the case for HS2 and reminded East Midlands Trains employees that they may “have a very significant stake in seeing HS2 come to fruition”.

Hammond wrote: “How often in the past has Britain baulked at big decisions, while other countries modernise their infrastructure? We have before us a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape our economic geography and build a railway fit for the 21st century. This time, let’s take it.

“I hope that many of you will have already have responded to the Government’s consultation on high speed rail. If you haven’t, there is still time to have your say.”

Campaign group Stop HS2, which circulated the internal statement, said the strategy was manipulative and “desperate”.

Stop HS2 chair Penny Gaines said: “For a government minister to act in this way is an abuse of his position and shows a complete contempt for the great many ordinary members of the public who are taking part in the HS2 consultation process in good faith,” she said.

Meanwhile, train drivers’ and operators’ union Aslef general secretary Keith Norman also lobbied his union’s members earlier this month by sending out pre-written consultation response postcards and urging members to sign and return them.

Norman urged colleagues to respond to the consultation and “make sure a privileged few do not prevent job creation for the many”.

An email sent to subscribers by pro-HS2 group Campaign for High Speed Rail on July 15th claimed that “at the moment, the number of negative responses [to the public consultation] is far greater than the number of positive responses”.

Readers' comments (3)

  • The cost of the infrastructure increases exponentially with the top running speed. This is equally applicable to running and maintenance costs. Also by doubling the top speed of the train a proportional decrease of journey time is not achieved due to acceleration, deceleration and stoppage times.

    Instead of going for a headline-grabbing top speed would not a lower top speed still produce a reliable, worthwile service for less cost and nuisance?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes and why don't we upgrade the Chiltern Line to run slightly faster trains on it. It's sheer vanity. There are many tales of unsuccessful HS rail schemes. I am in Germany today, in a place near Hamburg and my hosts reported that the HS rail service between Hamburg and the Ruhr was stopped some time ago, and the route is serviced by ordinary Inter City services, so introducing such a service is a risky thing. Look for Spain for another commercial HS rail disaster.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Will Hammond and his Westminster colleagues please stop this HS nonsense and focus on getting the country out of the mess that politicians have gor us into. I remain convinced that this folly is part of a smokescreen policy (which includes the time devoted to phone hacking) covering up the real issues - debt, the economy, immigration, education, waste, national security etc etc. To consider spending tens of billions on saving a few minutes between only two fixed points (and tens more to make it 3 or four) even if we were rich is utterly irresponsible. Who are these dumbheads that we allow to run the country??
    Jim Barrack

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.