Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Colin, Peterborough

  With regard to Woodhead - surely if there is going to be a large sum spent then the obvious answer is to rebore the Victorian tunnel into one tunnel at UIC GB+ then the rest of the infrastructrue is relatively straight forward. Surely this line needs to be re-evaluated as there appears to be a huge cost saving - makes the taxpayer happy to here such things!

• Stephen Lawrence, Cambridge

  One of the reasons for saving 10 minutes off the Leeds-Manchester timing is because trains run beyond those destinations. So if you also save 10mins west and east of that stretch, then Liverpool-York, Hull or Newcastle has 30 mins shaved off the timings. Also you'll find more people will use the route - this is known as "time elasticity" and is a well-documented statistical phenomenon. It's not something which is necessarily observed by any one person, but charts the aggregate behaviour on lines where journey times are incrementally improved. Consider a return journey undertaken in the morning - a 10-minute journey saving gives (on paper) 20 minutes more time before lunch. That influences people's behaviour.

• JF, Leeds

  "What is the point though, of a new high speed line linking cities that are relatively close together?"
  
  Or say, Reading and East London? They're closer, but justified a very expensive link. Trains into Manchester are ludicrously slow once they get past the Pennine tunnels, the last ten miles are where attention is needed (running into Victoria will probably help this).
  
  My suspicion with this announcement is that it'll be a replacement for the Birmingham-Leeds leg of HS2, with the argument that journeys via Manchester will still be quicker than present, with the former plan scrapped as the proposal is poor value (since there is relatively low demand on Leeds-Birmingham, without an acknowledgement this is possibly due to the slow times!)
  
  After the money thrown on the WCML about a decade ago, we'll see the other bias in railway investment (other than London) appearing, that of Lancashire gaining at Yorkshire's expense. I think our politicians don't realise Leeds is bigger than Manchester. We're still begging for small crumbs like the Leeds-Colton Jn electrification here.

• Colin, Peterborough

  The elephant in the room that would save millions on construction costs is surely to take another objective look at reopening the Woodhead line?
  
  (It sounds attractive, but was actually ruled out by transport minister Stephen Hammond as recently as last year. In any case the 1954 Woodhead tunnel is unlikely to offer UIC GB+ structure gauge, which is the standard for new High Speed lines.--Editor)

• Roshan, Leeds

  Having thought about it, you guys make a decent point that the Northern Hub improvements should suffice, at least for now, to improve journey times and increase capacity. Installing ERTMS on routes connecting the major cities would be good as faster trains could be introduced. Actually high-speed would not make a great deal of sense as the cities are close together.

• Tim Price, Bestwood Village

  A few years ago the TPE routes benefitted from the introduction of brand new units, currently the route is being electrified and will benefit, again, from brand new units. Now the plan is to build a high speed route?
  It certainly seems like the north is indeed the new south! What is the point though, of a new high speed line linking cities that are relatively close together?
  Surely the current electrification plans are sufficient to address any remaining issues on the route?
  If there is cash to splash for more railway development then how about spreading it around a bit more equally? The East Midland's (thinking local services) Wales and South West are all area's that are in dire need of improvements to rolling stock and infrastructure, but are constantly sidelined.

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  "I'm not aware of any trains being over-crowded like we have in the South-East."
  
  Umm ... have you travelled on any peak time trains between Leeds and Manchester lately? I have, and it's not a pretty sight. Okay, I admit I haven't been on any peak-time trains since May when they went up from 4tph to 5tph, and whether it will need improvements beyond Northern Hub + train lengthening remains to be seen. But no overcrowding? Come on.

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  I've tried to get the 'facts' on this upgrade on the Internet (eg cost, route) but there doesn't seem to be any. Its seems to be just a blatant electioneering stunt. Of course all the lines round there near upgrading but exactly where is the demand. I'm not aware of any trains being over-crowded like we have in the South-East.

• Tim, Devon

  What a ridiculous waste of public money. The fastest journey is 48minutes, does it really need to get faster?
  There are many regions deserving investment more. The average speed on lines in Devon is about 50mph.

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  News reports on this proposal only show a link between the two HS2 destinations of Manchester and Leeds but to work properly the line would need to run from Liverpool to Hull and include links from these cities into HS2 to build a network effect.
  
  Of course the line need not be to the speed of HS2 but should still allow 125/140 mph running as per normal high speed lines .
  
  As for funding well there is the £14 billion contingency on HS2 .
  
  What a pity government did not take up Cheryl Gillan amendment re £50 billion for HS2 and take it as a total amount available for High Speed Lines!

• James, London

  If it is extended to Liverpool and Hull via York then whoopydoo [and delivered within our lifetimes].

• Roshan, Leeds

  Not just Manchester to Leeds, but Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds would be great and would provide better links across the north. Also I would like to see HS2 extended to Newcastle Edinburgh and Glasgow, possibly stopping in Cumbria too, with a Edinburgh - Glasgow high-speed link. This, along with improving the railways across Britain by electrfying, introducing ERTMS etc., would give a country that is fantastically well connected with low-carbon transport!

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  Its a basic fact that while even without HS2 we have decent North South lines in the form of ECML, MML, and WCML we don't have any decent Eaśt West lines running through services.
  
  This will begin to change with the Crossrail project that will link the GWR to the former GER opening up many journey opportunities although still with changes at each end.
  
  The next scheme is the Eaśt West rail project that has grown from the original image based on Chiltern Railways and now looks like being a 125 mph railway which classifies it as a high speed line and will make more cross country journeys available .
  
  As for the north of England while cross country travel is possible it is often slow and despite electrification it will still not be up to the standard of North South lines and so this idea needs further investigation.
  
  As for funding well HS2 has a £14 billion contingency which if it follows Crossrail example could be going spare !
  
  Of course we know and election is less than a year away and so this announcement may end up like pie crust....

• Lutz, London

  It will take more than a new HS rail link to achieve the stated objectives. Sounds like an election manifesto promise.

• Torqueback, YORK

  Liverpool to Hull was what the Chancellor infered - which would be proportionately cheaper as a large project. Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds to Hull is all flat and comparatively open. The tricky bit would be Manchester to Leeds but the Italians seem to have no problem building tunnels: perhaps Huddersfield could be served San Remo-style with a central station deep underground?
  
  The losers, as ever, would be Teesside, Sunderland and Tyneside: it'd still take a lifetime to get from Newcastle to Manchester...

• Michael , London

  Typical again of a myopic Govt!
  We have HS1 - but really only 1/2 is 300kph.
  We could do with a well thought out network for the 21st century:
  
  HS2, Cornwall, plymouth, portsmouth, southamption, brighton, ashford, and onto the tunnel under the channel and spurs from Southampton and Brighton into London.
  
  HS3 - the airport interconnector, a loop, LHR, LGW, a station in what will be the English TEA int airport, stanstead, luton, and LHR.
  This can spur off with other HS's it crosses to go to Birmingham international, Manchester int and bradford leeds and up to Edinburgh and glasgow.
  
  HS5 - Belfast, dublin, under sea cut/cover tunnel, swansea, cardiff, bristol, swindon, reading, LHR, and the new subsurface tunnel with station under st panc/kings cross and carrying on to join HS1 at stratford
  
  HS6 - Dublin, liverpool, manchester, york the a Y on ECML (upgraded to HS PDL) to onward destinations.
  
  HS7 - Dublin, Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh/Aberdeen - Inverness
  
  HS8, the stratford, (the new tunnel to st pan/kings cross station), LHR, Reading, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow/Edinburgh
  
  HS9, old ECML, WCML and great midlands built in parallel -without kinks or curves. DRAW STRAIGHT LINES on map and JUST BUILD THESE PDL's.
  
  HS10 - the new subsurface from west to east - stratford, standstead, cambridge, nottingham, manchester, blackpool, scotland
  
  HS11 - plymouth, bristol, cheltenham, birmingham, liverpool, manchester, leeds/york, new castle, scotland - pushing all the way to inverness
  
  HS12 - the east / west under london that goes to LHR, st pan/kings cross, stratford, thames est new airport, to continental destinations.

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  Okay, that was something I didn't expect. For years people have been banging on about how utter absolutely imperatively important it is to connect up northern cities (and definitely not that monstrous abomination I might be able to see from my kitchen window down in Buckinghamshire), but I'd have thought if the government was giving any ground on this, they'd have done so long before now.
  
  However, I stand by what I've previously said: it would be nice to have, but I can think of other northern rail links where I'd rather spend the money. Once the Northern Hub is finished, the journey times from Leeds to Manchester will be pretty decent, and I can't see a new line shaving off more than 10 minutes. As far as I'm aware, there is no (train) capacity issue between Leeds and Manchester that needs solving with a new line. (There is a passenger capacity issue on Transpennine trains, but that is probably solvable through more carriages.) Compare this to the ludicrously slow journeys to places like Middlesbrough, I know where I'd rather give some attention.
  
  That's not to say this announcement isn't welcome - let's see exactly what they're proposing, why, and how they propose to do it. I just wish they'd give the same amount of attention to the north-east and south-west.
  
  (Having said that, it will be fun to watch the anti-HS2 crowd do a U-turn on cross-Pennine links. They have a stong track record in dropping support for rail improvements the moment the government says they'll do it.)