High-speed rail?

In Friday's Daily Telegraph (28/5/2010) there was an article by Andrew Gilligan titled For most of us, high-speed rail is anything but.   The piece covers a lot of ground and challenges a number of things that seem to be accepted as gospel, but what caught my eye was the paragraph which suggests that instead of spending money on grand flagship projects, the government should be investing in improvements to existing, ordinary services.

The West Coast mainline received a lot of funding aimed at increasing capacity and reducing journey times for the long-distance services, but what did it do for us commuters?   I reckon the answer is "not a lot".  We had to put up with a long period of inconvenience while track and signal 'improvements' were made, but some of the changes that have resulted include: 

1.  A significant reduction in the number of non-West Coast maninline (Virgin Trains) services using the fast-line.  There are fewer fast trains between Bletchley and Euston and the semi-fasts that we get are sandwiched between the 'all stop' trains.
2. Less flexibility when things go wrong - To increase line speeds Railtrack (as was) had to reduce the number of points on the line where trains could switch from fast to slow and vice versa.  What this means now is that if there is a problem on the line, perhaps a failed train or lineside equipment failure, then trains are more likely to get stuck.
3. A drop down the list in terms of priority when things go wrong.   This does seem to have improved in recent years but there certainly seemed to be a time when the local services were cancelled left, right and centre when there was a significant problem while Virgin Trains West Coast Main Line services appeared to come off significantly better.

The cost of the West Coast main Line upgrade apparently increased six-fold by the time it was finished, coming out an eye-watering £14.5 billion (National Audit Office).   Was it worth it?