:00:04. > :00:07.Inside Out. Tonight we challenge the people arguing for and against
:00:07. > :00:17.high speed rail in the Midlands that they, and not their opponents,
:00:17. > :00:24.are right. HS2 costs an arm and a leg and it's
:00:24. > :00:28.not all it's cracked up to be. There is no risk to high speed rail.
:00:28. > :00:34.The future waits for nobody. The real risk for us is that we miss
:00:34. > :00:44.the train and end up standing on the platform.
:00:44. > :00:50.
:00:50. > :00:54.I'm Mary Rhodes, join me on a high Now this week we have handed our
:00:54. > :00:57.programme with very different views. We gave them each a cameraman,
:00:57. > :01:07.editor, and director, who, despite years of training in balance and
:01:07. > :01:17.impartiality, have helped them make unashamedly partizan pieces. The
:01:17. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :01:24.first film comes from Simon Topman There are a lot of myths
:01:24. > :01:33.surrounding the proposals of High Speed Rail, many of them arising
:01:33. > :01:36.through a fear of change, but change is what powers progress.
:01:36. > :01:38.From canal boats to steam power, spaghetti junction to an
:01:38. > :01:47.International airport, for centuries our economy has relied on
:01:47. > :01:50.a sophisticated network of transport. To its opponents, High
:01:50. > :01:53.Speed Rail is an expensive risk we can't afford to take they believe
:01:53. > :02:02.that High Speed Rail is not necessary for our future
:02:02. > :02:05.development. But just like the Victorian's and their magnificent
:02:05. > :02:15.railways, the only risk in this High Speed Rail proposal, is not
:02:15. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:32.getting on board at all. The West Coast Railway was built in the
:02:32. > :02:33.
:02:33. > :02:36.1840s and has been the backbone of the network ever since. The use of
:02:36. > :02:44.the West Coast Mainline has more than doubled in recent years and it
:02:44. > :02:50.now carries more than 28m passengers every year. What is the
:02:50. > :03:00.biggest problem with the West Coast Mainline? The line massively over
:03:00. > :03:00.
:03:01. > :03:03.capacity, it is one of the busiest passenger lines in the country.
:03:03. > :03:13.WCML is carrying freight services, long distance, regional & local
:03:13. > :03:16.
:03:16. > :03:20.services all on one track it's like cramming the M6 into a single lane.
:03:20. > :03:30.So, why don't they simply have more trains? More trains mean high speed
:03:30. > :03:31.
:03:31. > :03:36.rail and less stops. How are the passengers at Coventry Station
:03:36. > :03:41.benefit from HS2? Are they going to miss out because they are not
:03:41. > :03:43.connected to it? Absolutely not. Many of the people will find the
:03:43. > :03:53.new Birmingham Interchange line even more convenient to them, with
:03:53. > :03:53.
:03:53. > :04:03.very fast services. At Coventry, trains will become less crowded and
:04:03. > :04:07.
:04:07. > :04:14.with new services in Birmingham, better cross-country services.
:04:14. > :04:16.if HS2 doesn't stop at your station you will benefit. Opponents of HS2
:04:16. > :04:26.have suggested alternatives, but none of them will deal with
:04:26. > :04:28.
:04:28. > :04:38.overcrowding. That is not just an issue form West Coast Mainline, but
:04:38. > :04:38.
:04:38. > :04:45.for local commuter services. rarely get a seat on the way home,
:04:45. > :04:55.I don't even try. I am tetchy, want my tea, and I have paid �3,500 for
:04:55. > :04:56.
:04:56. > :05:06.a season ticket. I hated being a moany British person, but it is not
:05:06. > :05:06.
:05:06. > :05:09.on. A rail executive tells me more about the problem. We are already
:05:09. > :05:13.having some of our commuter services pushed out of the way by
:05:13. > :05:23.the big trains. What this will allow us to do is have a lot more
:05:23. > :05:24.
:05:24. > :05:34.commuter services, and intergrated network. Opponents tell us that the
:05:34. > :05:37.
:05:37. > :05:40.Eastside station is too far away, but a tram network will connect it.
:05:40. > :05:43.So HS2 is not designed as an isolated rich man's toy, it's part
:05:43. > :05:46.of an integrated transport strategy that will revolutionise our future,
:05:46. > :05:53.getting the freight off the roads and onto the railways and
:05:53. > :06:01.mobilising our work force. People want better access to jobs to
:06:01. > :06:04.enable us to connect to skilled workforce. With youth unployment
:06:04. > :06:14.raching one million, HS2 could provide much needed jobs in the
:06:14. > :06:15.
:06:15. > :06:17.region. It could provide 22,000 jobs to area, not just in the
:06:17. > :06:27.construction of the line and staffing the various hubs but by
:06:27. > :06:31.
:06:31. > :06:36.attracting new investors and mobilising our workforce. The value
:06:36. > :06:38.to the public? A wage increase of up to �300 per annum as demand for
:06:38. > :06:41.our workforce increases their value. They're impressive figures, and as
:06:41. > :06:44.the West Midlands falls within phase one of the project, our
:06:44. > :06:52.economy & skilled workforce will begin to benefit from the moment
:06:52. > :07:00.construction begins in 2017 Look at Jaguar Landrover. On it's knees
:07:00. > :07:04.just 4 years ago, now thriving. The difference is investment. We need
:07:04. > :07:13.to invest in the railways, now, before it is too late. If you
:07:13. > :07:23.invest you will progress. Opponents tell us that HS2 will mean better
:07:23. > :07:23.
:07:23. > :07:32.connections to London, leading to a brain-drain. Leading cooperate law
:07:32. > :07:42.firms disagree. We have lower operating costs, their will be
:07:42. > :07:52.
:07:53. > :07:55.people coming out of London, like the 90s. The cost is �2bn per annum
:07:56. > :07:59.this is currently being spent in London on Crossrail so come 2017
:07:59. > :08:02.those funds will be diverted & just like that upgrade, this is not
:08:02. > :08:05.going to impact on budgets or commitments to the road network and
:08:05. > :08:15.other services. They are saying to us, we will continue spending this
:08:15. > :08:33.
:08:33. > :08:36.money and we want to spend it in your region. That sounds great.
:08:36. > :08:39.fact the west Midlands expect a financial return from HS2, but that
:08:39. > :08:49.doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of big cost project like this,
:08:49. > :08:55.
:08:55. > :09:00.after all it's a massive investment, and it needs scrutinising. But look
:09:00. > :09:03.at the fuss we made over the development of the NEC. They called
:09:03. > :09:07.it a white elephant and feared it would draw money away from the city
:09:07. > :09:12.& towns that surround it, but look at it now. They opened this in 1976
:09:12. > :09:22.and got so much aggro. We need to be brave now. The NEC now
:09:22. > :09:32.
:09:32. > :09:35.contribute �2 billion to the west midlands economy every year.
:09:35. > :09:45.Employers are telling us they want to invest, and it would be a
:09:45. > :09:49.
:09:49. > :09:53.disaster not to have it. It would be a disaster for Birmingham, Sony
:09:53. > :09:58.jobs not creative. People who create jobs and wealth are telling
:09:58. > :10:04.us they would like to relocate to Birmingham, a roundabout new
:10:04. > :10:14.station, and not having it will stagnate, and possibly put the
:10:14. > :10:15.
:10:15. > :10:19.Birmingham economy back. You can look at the costs of HS2. So the
:10:19. > :10:25.question is not what will it cost and can we afford it,' the question
:10:25. > :10:28.is can we really afford NOT to have Convinced? Hogwash, say opponents.
:10:28. > :10:31.Perhaps I should say Hogwarts, as you may spot a few famous faces
:10:31. > :10:41.from Harry Potter as we move on to the film by Warwickshire's Jerry
:10:41. > :10:49.Marshall, a chair of a coalition trying to derail HS2.
:10:50. > :10:53.HS2 costs an arm and a leg and it's not all it's cracked up to be. I'm
:10:53. > :11:00.not alone. Across the country, groups, business people and MPs
:11:00. > :11:05.across the political spectrum have been outspoken in their criticism.
:11:05. > :11:08.In Europe high speed rail lines are closing or going bankrupt. The high
:11:08. > :11:13.speed line in Kent cost the taxpayer billions and is only
:11:14. > :11:20.attracting 30% of the passengers they originally predicted. I'm a
:11:20. > :11:24.businessman and I can see the case for this simply doesn't stack up.
:11:24. > :11:30.And there are much better alternatives. The problem is, HS2
:11:30. > :11:33.doesn't do what it says on the tin for most Midlands travellers. High
:11:33. > :11:41.speed isn't high speed if your door to door journey time is slower Now
:11:41. > :11:48.you can get from Coventry to London in under an hour. But if the new
:11:48. > :11:51.high speed rail plans go ahead it'll take longer. But these
:11:51. > :11:54.services will be cut back and for Coventrians to use HS2, they'll
:11:54. > :11:59.have to get a train to Birmingham International, another train to the
:11:59. > :12:08.new HS2 station - and finally, the HS2 train itself to London. What is
:12:08. > :12:11.the sense in that? But Coventry's not the only problem. For those
:12:11. > :12:16.arriving here at the proposed HS2 station on Curzon Street in
:12:16. > :12:26.Birmingham.. If you want to go on anywhere else in the region you'll
:12:26. > :12:27.
:12:27. > :12:37.have to drag all your luggage to here, New Street Station. I am
:12:37. > :12:41.
:12:42. > :12:47.trying to find New Street Sations. -- station. Do you know where it is.
:12:47. > :12:50.I make that a 20 minute walk. What is the point? So the government
:12:50. > :12:53.invest half a billion pounds for every minute you save getting to
:12:53. > :12:57.Birmingham at high speed then you lose it spending 20 minutes walking
:12:57. > :13:01.at 3mph probably in the rain to catch your next train. I think the
:13:01. > :13:06.real problem with HS2 though is the cost. In this parliament alone the
:13:06. > :13:14.link will cost us nearly 1 billion pounds just on planning! That money
:13:14. > :13:24.is vital from frontline services. We need that money for schools and
:13:24. > :13:25.
:13:25. > :13:32.hospitals, a far better use of money. We were supposed to have got
:13:32. > :13:38.350 million, which would have reinvented every set secondary
:13:38. > :13:43.school in the country. Far better than destroying the green belt, and
:13:43. > :13:46.put in train lines were people do not need them. Is HS2 a good
:13:46. > :13:56.investment for Coventry City Council? That's �1700 per household,
:13:56. > :14:01.
:14:01. > :14:11.is that a bargain? There are other options. Do you think that is good
:14:11. > :14:14.
:14:14. > :14:24.value? That is quite a lot. �1,700 per household, a Great Train
:14:24. > :14:25.
:14:25. > :14:29.System? Is that a bargain? No way. People can have other options.
:14:29. > :14:32.Instead of them putting the money into that, they should put it into
:14:32. > :14:34.community centres for children. She's right going ahead with high
:14:34. > :14:38.speed will mean cutting vital lifelines for some of the poorest
:14:38. > :14:41.and most vulnerable. Meanwhile you and I are coughing up to pay for
:14:41. > :14:47.what the former Transport Secretary admits is a service for a wealthy
:14:47. > :14:52.minority. Uncomfortable fact number perhaps number one is that the
:14:52. > :14:54.railway is already relatively a rich man's toy. People who use the
:14:54. > :15:04.railway on average have significantly higher incomes than
:15:04. > :15:09.the population as a whole, simple fact. HS2 is totally the wrong
:15:09. > :15:14.priority. But if the project was going to create jobs and growth in
:15:14. > :15:24.the Midlands it might be a price worth paying. We certainly need
:15:24. > :15:25.
:15:25. > :15:32.something to get us out of this mess. We really needed jobs and
:15:32. > :15:37.growth. Are you kidding, the cat that close, over there. It is a
:15:37. > :15:42.disaster. We don't need it to turn into even more of a backwater.
:15:42. > :15:47.The Department of Transport says it will create a 42,000 more jobs,
:15:47. > :15:53.good news? No. Most of these will not be new jobs, just transfers of
:15:53. > :15:59.existing jobs. The Department of Transport says most the jobs will
:15:59. > :16:09.be in London. Some say HS2 will actually reduce the number of jobs.
:16:09. > :16:09.
:16:09. > :16:13.Take here. The rusty benefit, with investment -- for us to benefit
:16:13. > :16:21.with investment, we need a new track between Coventry and
:16:21. > :16:27.Birmingham. That would give us benefits in every respect.
:16:27. > :16:35.Employment and connectivity. That would be effective. We are just
:16:35. > :16:41.investing in a narrow stretch of high-speed railway, that will not
:16:41. > :16:45.help the rest of the country. HS2 is not going to boost the
:16:45. > :16:55.productivity, growth or jobs in the Midlands. There is another area
:16:55. > :17:03.where we are being misled, that his capacity. -- that his capacity. We
:17:03. > :17:11.are told we are going to run at capacity between London, Birmingham
:17:11. > :17:19.and Glasgow. Images like this do not tell the whole story. There is
:17:19. > :17:24.a capacity issue at some times are the day. That is not to do with
:17:24. > :17:33.fundamental capacity. That is when the off-peak fares become available.
:17:33. > :17:40.It is the time where people prefer to travel. As Philip Hammond said,
:17:40. > :17:50.the fares are so expensive people can't afford to use them. We don't
:17:50. > :17:59.need a whole new line, just increasing the carriages from five
:17:59. > :18:08.to nine would improve services. It is a simple as that. -- as simple.
:18:08. > :18:17.The demand can be met on the existing route. HS2 would be a
:18:17. > :18:21.disaster for the nation's finances. There is another massive cost. 51
:18:22. > :18:28.ancient woodlands, wildlife, and areas of outstanding natural beauty
:18:28. > :18:31.would be lost. All set to be ploughed up by this scheme. We need
:18:31. > :18:38.efficient transport systems, but not at the expense of the
:18:38. > :18:44.environment. What, in the end, would be more valuable to our
:18:44. > :18:54.children, and grandchildren? A slightly faster journey to London,
:18:54. > :18:57.
:18:57. > :19:05.or our countryside? Technology holds the key to the real option. I
:19:05. > :19:14.can link up to these films stars from the Harry Potter films from
:19:14. > :19:17.half way around the world. There is no magic involved. Unless you need
:19:17. > :19:25.to hold something in your hand, there is no in real need to leave
:19:25. > :19:31.the office. -- no real need. degree of me there is no need to
:19:31. > :19:38.spend that money. It is greater to speak to these guys, from where I'm
:19:38. > :19:46.speaking high-speed broadband is much more valuable. -- from where I
:19:46. > :19:50.am sitting. We need to be much more prudent. With no capacity crunch
:19:50. > :19:57.for decades, we have time to sort out the real rail priorities, and
:19:57. > :20:03.get the next stage right. Ask yourself this, do you want the
:20:03. > :20:10.government to spend �1,700 of your money for a single rail line with a
:20:10. > :20:17.dodgy business case? Could be money be better spent? -- of the money be
:20:17. > :20:25.better spent. Write your MP and ask them to kill this.
:20:25. > :20:34.Two films, to well-argued cases -- two well-argued cases. You can
:20:34. > :20:40.comment on our Facebook page. Heres our final film. I take a trip back
:20:40. > :20:50.in time to find out something about our quest for faster trains.
:20:50. > :20:56.
:20:56. > :21:04.This is the story of how we went from this, to this. Via this. And
:21:04. > :21:14.almost a best. -- almost as this. It is the story how Our Railways
:21:14. > :21:15.
:21:15. > :21:20.modernised the nation. This is a history of high-speed rail.
:21:20. > :21:30.The coronation. Approve of what can be done, a train back goes faster
:21:30. > :21:38.than 70 mph. Britain got its first taste of high-speed rail in the
:21:38. > :21:43.1930s. This was only for the higher classes, everybody else has
:21:43. > :21:51.travelled slowly. This represented a time when our railways were the
:21:51. > :21:55.envy of the world. By then, the world had moved on. This was the
:21:55. > :22:03.decade when the engineers across the decade develops newer, faster
:22:03. > :22:12.trains. Some did not take-off, but looks like they might. Others did.
:22:13. > :22:20.Back home, British Rail fell behind, they needed a spark. And
:22:20. > :22:30.electrification brought faster rail travel. Rail times almost halved.
:22:30. > :22:30.
:22:30. > :22:36.This was modernisation. The reality was that once they had done their
:22:36. > :22:42.showpiece project, the West Coast mainline, the wider economy was
:22:42. > :22:46.suffering. British Rail found themselves have a difficult problem,
:22:46. > :22:51.how were they going to compete against the rising tide of
:22:51. > :22:57.motorways, how were they going to survive into the future, let alone
:22:57. > :23:06.develop a bold new future? The answer was the Advanced
:23:06. > :23:16.Passenger Train, or so it seemed. It used revolutionary tilting
:23:16. > :23:17.
:23:18. > :23:21.technology. The train is designed to iron the bumps out. It was not
:23:22. > :23:27.such a smooth ride. It suffered mechanical problems. Some
:23:28. > :23:37.passengers complained of feeling sick. It was scrapped soon after
:23:38. > :23:38.
:23:38. > :23:46.launch. It looks as good as any motor car, a Ferrari. It was not
:23:46. > :23:53.the end of the dream. Another fast train was being designed.
:23:53. > :24:02.railway decided, perhaps in parallel, to design a more simple
:24:02. > :24:08.train. It was a prototype. It set a new world record. The diesel-
:24:08. > :24:13.powered InterCity was certainly fast. Few realise how successful it
:24:13. > :24:21.would be. I would not have put money on it lasting as long as it
:24:22. > :24:31.did. The one to five defied the odds, and turned around at the
:24:32. > :24:32.
:24:32. > :24:35.railways. -- turned around at the railways. It is a success story,
:24:35. > :24:41.the most important trained in the history of Britain's railways in
:24:41. > :24:47.the second half of the 20th century. They took the basic technology, and
:24:47. > :24:52.delivered a high-speed rail service. It was the low-cost answer to the
:24:52. > :24:58.high-speed train. But even this to the train had its limits. The
:24:58. > :25:03.InterCity was fast, it revolutionised rail. But while
:25:03. > :25:11.trains in Japan did more than 140 mph, our busy Victorian
:25:11. > :25:17.infrastructure meant we could not go faster than 125. Japan in the
:25:17. > :25:22.1960s, they built a new railway line. They were so overcrowded,
:25:22. > :25:31.they have to build new trains. We could not delay in this country, we
:25:31. > :25:36.could not afford it. -- we could not do it in this country.
:25:36. > :25:43.answer was to build a new railway lines. Money was tight, but British
:25:43. > :25:53.Rail plan to do that. The Channel Tunnel from London to Kent would be
:25:53. > :25:53.
:25:53. > :26:00.high-speed rail in its truest sense. What do they want to do here?
:26:00. > :26:05.wanted to put it here. Not everyone embraced this revolution. It went
:26:05. > :26:13.through villages like this one in Kent. British Rail bought up the
:26:13. > :26:19.houses, but it divided the community. It was devastating.
:26:19. > :26:28.Neighbours were able to sell, the others couldn't. A be created a bad
:26:28. > :26:36.atmosphere. -- it created a bad atmosphere. It split families. Some
:26:36. > :26:46.end up in the divorce court. approaches London from the east,
:26:46. > :26:56.and terminate at King's Cross! -- terminates. It had a lasting effect,
:26:56. > :26:57.
:26:57. > :27:03.they changed the line. It has taken a long time. What you think of the
:27:03. > :27:11.line-out? It is all right. I have been on it a couple of times. All
:27:11. > :27:21.of that for 20 minutes between Paris, was it worth it. -- was it
:27:21. > :27:24.
:27:24. > :27:31.worth it? The Channel tunnel is now run by a separate company. It is
:27:31. > :27:41.huge. It is the same as the first 100 mph train. You have daily
:27:41. > :27:41.
:27:41. > :27:45.services cruising over 200 mph. It revolutionised well-travelled.
:27:45. > :27:49.history of high-speed train travel in Britain is long, and sometimes
:27:49. > :27:56.controversial. We could go faster, reduce journey times, but for that
:27:56. > :28:02.to happen, something has to change. The question raised, just how much
:28:02. > :28:10.of a change is anyone prepared to accept. The options for the future
:28:11. > :28:19.are, we either go for High Speed Two, which would release capacity,
:28:19. > :28:26.all we changed the network to cope with the amount of traffic. We
:28:26. > :28:32.cannot do nothing. Will start to go backwards. -- we will start to go