Letters regarding high speed rail link

 

HS2: No to ‘impartiality’

AFTER reading, with interest, the articles in Cornerstone on the HS2 high-speed railway proposal, and members’ views expressed in the magazine’s Letters section, I feel I must point out something that proponents of the scheme who have been writing in to Cornerstone seem to miss.

Whilst a national debate on the subject would be welcome – there may be sound arguments for improving the railways – the SPAB has no responsibility to take a balanced overview.

We are not a government body or impartial adjudicator, and should have no fear of appearing to be prejudiced in favour of the protection of old buildings; that is, after all, the Society’s stated mission.

When a construction project of this sort involves such huge sums of money, there is never any shortage of support from powerful vested interests, and from those in their pockets. A balanced debate demands that all points of view are fairly represented, and I am glad to see that the SPAB is not shying away from its responsibility to advocate the case for conservation of our historic buildings and their settings.
Steven Haines
Udimore
East Sussex 

 

HS2: SPAB should set out the case for high speed rail

I AM writing to express my concern about the line the SPAB seems to be taking over the proposed high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham (HS2).

Clearly this is a matter of great concern to the SPAB, and all SPAB members would agree that it is important to exert great pressure to ensure that if HS2 goes ahead, the least damaging route is chosen, important buildings are spared, and all possible mitigation measures are implemented.

One of the reasons that I admire the Society so much is the intellectual rigour for which the SPAB is famous. However, when it comes to HS2 such rigour seems to have been abandoned.

Alarmist phrases such as “A Berlin Wall for Britain” are what I would expect to read in the Daily Express, as well as being in questionable taste. The articles in Cornerstone have concentrated almost entirely on the (natural and legitimate) worries of the owners of a few large country houses who would be affected by the scheme.

Naturally I sympathise with those who face having a corner of their estate cut off, but only the most cursory attempt is made to balance this against other factors. These include the fact that existing rail lines are virtually full, with demand predicted to soar; the extensive analysis that has taken place of the feasibility of upgrading existing lines; the massive shift in economic geography that has taken place against the north over the past generation; the imminence of peak oil; the fact that all the UK’s major competitors are currently building high speed rail lines; and the heritage implications of the likely alternatives to HS2 – more motorways and runways.

There is no analysis of the impact that our existing high speed rail line, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, has had on the built heritage.

Cornerstone might usefully inform members about this, rather than illustrating articles with pictures of Chinese railway lines.

I am slightly reassured by the dissenting letter from Simon Mitchell in the last Cornerstone that the SPAB is not insisting on a Pravda-like unanimity on this issue. But the fact remains that coverage of HS2 has been unbalanced.

One way of remedying this would be to include an article in the next edition on the heritage case for HS2.
Chris Costelloe
London E5


HS2: just a quiet whoosh

I AM writing to calm your anxieties about the effect of highspeed trains. I confess that I do not know which properties may be demolished if the HS2 line is built, but I do deny that the trains will be noisy. I have travelled on several such trains in Germany and France and Spain, and I have heard them passing in the countryside, and I deny that they are noisy. They make a kind of whooshing sound which does not travel far. Compared with the noise from Heathrow, which starts at 5.20am now, it is nothing.

It is inevitable that there will be disruption during building, and I do pity residents for that, but peace will return to the Chilterns.
Judith Bramley
Blakeney
Gloucestershire

 

HS2: heritage demolition–weigh up pros and cons

I WOULD like to add my support to Simon Mitchell’s letter in the previous edition of Cornerstone. Rail is one of the greenest and most sustainable methods of moving people and freight around the country, and more investment in rail would allow people to work more efficiently and reduce the overcrowding in the South East.

Clearly it is not desirable to demolish listed buildings, but we have to weigh the pros and cons. If the railways had not been built in the past our country would certainly be the poorer for it now.

People complaining about noise pollution should not receive the support of SPAB since as long as the buildings are untouched there is no loss of our heritage. If we wish to campaign it should be for minimal impact, NOT in opposition to rail development. This country is crying out for better, faster railways, and it is a great shame there is not more investment in moving us to a more modern, efficient system.

Supporting this nimbyism and publishing details of individuals’ complaints does no favours for SPAB and I for one find it a complete turn off, and it makes me less inclined to support the good work the Society is capable of doing.
Henry L’Estrange
Gosberton
Lincolnshire


HS2: let’s trust engineers

THIS subject seems to have placed SPAB members polarised into “true heritage preservers” or “despoiling progress enthusiasts”. If this is the choice, I veer towards the latter.

We have made all journeys in Britain and mainland Europe for two decades by train, despite the cost disincentives. The time differentials compared to flying are marginal and environmental benefits obvious. For undecided SPAB members I would like to suggest two days out to visit important historic sites in Kent.

Trip 1. St Pancras to Canterbury by high-speed train, hourly direct service taking 56 minutes. Note on your journey the size of cuttings, embankments and bridges, compared with the M2 and M20 motorways alongside; also the number of historic buildings adversely affected.

Trip 2. Central London to Dover via the M20 motorway, noting the number of trains passing on the parallel HS1 line. Don’t forget this single pair of tracks carries all high-speed trains, not only Eurostar to Paris and Brussels (and on to France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, etc) but the Javelin trains to towns in North and East Kent. On your return have a tea break at Maidstone Services Junction 8 and check if you are aware that you have crossed HS1 to get to the Service area.

Trust the expert engineering teams who built up valuable experience on HS1, decide the least disruptive route, and get on with it as quickly as possible to open up the Midlands, North and Scotland to European business and tourism.
Chris McGrath
Rye
East Sussex

 HS2: Cornerstone’s editor replies

AS a footnote to his recent letter to “Cornerstone” expressing support, in extremis, for railway construction over heritage conservation, one correspondent urged the SPAB to give equal space in its magazine to the case in favour of the proposed scheme.

Happily there may be no need to do this. When read as one, the several letters received on the matter and published in this and the previous edition of “Cornerstone” more or less state the case for HS2 – as set out by government, the construction firms and the railway companies – in most of its aspects.

Worryingly, there appears to be rather a distance between what has actually been reported in “Cornerstone”, and some correspondents’ interpretation of its coverage. For the record, that there would be significant loss of historic buildings and settings – listed and unlisted, statutorily protected and unprotected – under HS2 is no longer a matter for conjecture: it is fact; the example of high-speed rail lines in Kent cannot be used as an accurate template for a vastly larger scheme in a different part of the country; and the SPAB, and its magazine, are not opposed to rail improvement – but neither are they platforms for promoting it.

From the SPAB’s campaigning against airport expansion, especially at Stansted, the Society saw at first hand the demoralisation and decay in historic communities, and their old buildings, that arise from long-term exposure to the threat of development – let alone the reality of demolition and large-scale building. This process of degradation-by-uncertainty has already begun along the HS2 route, spreading far beyond the proposed site of lines. As the SPAB found around Stansted, a spiral of falling property prices and heritage care short-termism and why-botherism soon sets in. That, in turn, has a drastic effect on the historic landscape – all of it – as maintenance and repair money flows away from the blight zone.

 “Cornerstone” has visited the route, seen many of the ancient buildings on or near the proposed line, met their owners, listened to their concerns first-hand. Its resulting coverage, by highly experienced broadsheet journalists, has been thorough and professional. And, yes, it is biased in favour of protecting historic buildings and their settings.

Ideally, all these arguments would be aired at a formal public inquiry, but government is not following this path. Indeed, none of the owners of historic buildings near the HS2 route have thus far had a formal letter, visit or notice from any government department, construction firm or railway company.

SPAB members know that the notion of good trusteeship lies at the heart of its philosophy. Allied to this core tenet of the Society is watchfulness. In crowded Britain, with already immense pressure to develop set to grow further, the Society remains vigilant in its defence of historic buildings and their best interests. As the SPAB’s magazine, “Cornerstone” will continue to report on threats – actual and potential – to historic buildings.
Robin Stummer