CONSERVATIVE Party plans to build a new high-speed railway link from Central London and Heathrow Airport to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds have run into major criticism from the aviation industry, from business leaders — and from Scotland.

The Tories said the new line would be developed instead of the planned third runway at Heathrow, but British Airways, the most vocal backer for expanding Britain's biggest airport, said the Tories would endanger the economy and ignore the calls of the business community for a new runway.

Other business leaders said they believed a third Heathrow runway is vital to maintain London’s global status, and a new rail link would not address the current problems.

Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, the business lobby group, said: “A high speed rail link would have a lot going for it, but don’t think for a minute that it will solve the capacity problems at Heathrow.

“We need to have a third runway at Heathrow, as long as all the environmental conditions are met.”

Colin Stanbridge, chief executive of the London chamber of commerce and industry, said high-speed rail links were not a substitute for a third runway. “Failing to expand Heathrow will undoubtedly damage the UK economy even if new rail links are built. This debate should not be reduced to ‘one or the other’, because the UK needs expansion at Heathrow and improved train transport to remain competitive.”

Theresa Villiers, shadow transport secretary, told the Tory conference in Birmingham that a Conservative government would say no to a third runway at Heathrow and would concentrate instead on developing high-speed rail. The Conservatives would aim to begin construction in 2015 with full completion planned by 2027.

Ms Villiers said a new high-speed rail line between Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and London would cut journey times between Birmingham and London to 40 minutes and between Leeds and London to less than an hour and a half.

A high-speed link from St Pancras and Heathrow to the north could replace up to 66,500 flights a year, and would free up almost a third of the capacity provided if a third runway were built, she said.

The pledge builds on that made by Ms Villiers in an interview with Railnews this summer, when she condemned the fact the Government’s 30-year strategy barely mentioned high-speed rail.

She said then they were looking at options to build on the success of High Speed 1 between London and the Channel Tunnel.

In her conference speech, Ms Villiers told delegates that transport affected people’s quality of life, and a reliable system was essential if businesses were to compete effectively and survive in good times and bad.
 
But she said overcrowding must be tackled, as “you won’t tempt people out of their cars and on to trains if they can’t physically squeeze into the carriages”, but simple measures like longer trains and longer platforms were “painfully slow in coming”.
 
And she said just as the steam locomotive helped push forward progress and prosperity in the 19th century, and motorways and airports in the 20th century, in today’s world it could be high speed rail.
 
“Firstly, high speed rail could relieve nightmare levels of over-crowding by freeing up space for more commuter services on existing lines, alongside more paths for freight, taking hundreds of lorries off our congested roads.
 
“Secondly, it could generate huge economic benefits – a full high speed network could add £60 billion to the UK’s wealth, with £5.2 billion for Birmingham alone.
 
“Thirdly, high speed rail could help heal long standing divisions in our economy by shrinking the distance between north and south.”
 
And she said HSR delivered for the environment as well, with the latest generation of trains emitting 50 times less carbon than cars and 70 times less than flying.
 
She said it could take thousands of car journeys off the roads, and transform the debate on Heathrow.
 
“Evidence from right around Europe clearly shows that high speed rail provides a viable and attractive alternative to short haul flights.
 
“A high speed link from St Pancras to Heathrow, connecting to the north, could replace up to 66,500 flights a year.
 
“That would free up almost a third of the capacity that would be provided if a third runway were built.
 
“A national high speed network could provide around 44 per cent of that capacity with the potential to rise much further as the European network improves and expands.
 
“And it could deliver this without the environmental penalties of a third runway.”

Her move follows a conference season which saw high speed rail featuring heavily, with the Liberal Democrats formally approving policies including starting planning work on expanding the high speed rail network immediately, as well as full electrification by 2050.

But Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly said of the Tory announcement: "These proposals are politically opportunistic, economically illiterate and hugely damaging to Britain's national interests.
"The Tories are posing a false choice - we need both more capacity in Britain's airports and on our main rail lines.

"Even if every flight from Manchester and Leeds/Bradford to Heathrow were replaced by a new high speed line then Heathrow would still be operating at 97 per cent capacity.

"It is the Tories who cannot face up to the tough decisions needed to support the economy, hiding behind unfunded, ill thought through policy announcements which only reinforces their reputation as lightweight, shallow and only interested in grabbing a headline.

"It's hard to take them seriously when they can't even get their facts straight."

The Tory announcement was, however, welcomed by the Association of Train Operating Companies.

Michael Roberts, Chief Executive of ATOC, said: “The Conservative Party’s commitment to invest in providing more capacity as a priority is good news. There is still plenty of number-crunching to do on the location and type of extra capacity needed after 2015, but a new high speed line could release space on the existing network to allow train operators to offer more seats on busier longer distance trains.”

But Mike Carrivick, chief executive of the UK board of airline representatives, said the share of domestic air services that would be replaced by high-speed rail was “small.”

The Tory “rationale simply doesn’t match the facts and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the airport and its workings.

“Heathrow will fade away as an international hub airport. The UK will be the big loser,” he said.

Scottish politicians and businessmen also attacked the Tory high-speed rail plan.

The Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that firms north of the Border have repeatedly requested a high-speed link to London as a replacement for the “unreliable, expensive” train service currently available.

Colin Borland, the body's spokesman, said: “This announcement, from current information, seems like the worst of all options for Scotland's business community. Not only will domestic flights remain a low priority at Heathrow but the rail link will stop hundreds of miles short of the border.”

Brian Donohoe, the Central Ayrshire Labour MP, said the Tory “snub” to Scotland baffled him. He said as many people flew between Scotland and London as Leeds and London, and there was sufficient justification to extend the line, which would be built between 2015 and 2027, north of the Border.

Denying the plans are a snub, Tory leader David Cameron said: “At the moment we haven't got any high-speed rail and it's not going anywhere.”

He said: “I see this as a first step and I hope everyone in Scotland will welcome this as a first step, but I don't want to stop there. I would like to have more high-speed rail to make our country closer, to make sure it is easier to get from London to Edinburgh, from London to Glasgow.”

The plans were also criticised in the north of England. North East Tories expressed disappointment as Liberal Democrats and Labour accused Mr Cameron of ignoring the region, while business chiefs branded it as a “terrible missed opportunity.”