IS IT not absurd that this country which brought railways to the world cannot now build one for today's trains?
In France, trains hurtle at 186 mph to and from the Channel Tunnel. They had their high-speed link to the tunnel ready a year before it opened. And the Belgians were not far behind with theirs..
But here in England, the super Euro trains are forced to trundle to and fro at a crawl. Almost four years after the tunnel opened, we still have no high-speed link - only a line on a map. And now that project heads for the buffers.
For London and Continental Railways, the company which won the right to build the £5billion, 68-mile link between London and the tunnel by 2003, has ploughed deep into trouble.
With £1.8billion pledged by the taxpayer, it planned to fund its share of the scheme with profits from running the Eurostar trains it was given by the Tory government more than two years ago. But with passenger levels falling way below predictions, the trains are losing £1million a week. So LCR turns to the government for another £1.2billion to rescue the project. Transport supremo John Prescott last night refused and gave them just 30 days to find funds in the private sector.
And if that fails, the government will take back the Eurostar trains and hand them to what is left of British Rail to run them.
But what of the high-speed link? Who knows? If the LCR venture collapses, other private-sector groups might move in the snap up the project, but may also want guarantees of substantial taxpayer support.
What is vital, however, is that the absurdity of Britain still having no express link to the tunnel must be sorted out fast, but without the taxpayers' pockets being turned into a bottomless pit by speculators. If they want to make money out of the project, they should run the risks.
Yet, none of this doubt and delay need have arisen in the first place if, back in the late 1980s, the Conservative government had accepted the BR-backed route for the tunnel link. But because it ran through some key marginal constituencies, it was more keen on placating "nimby" voters in order to survive than serving the national interest.
As a result, we are where we are today - years behind and with the bill going up and up.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article