Pressure is growing on the Government from all sides for more high-speed rail lines.
The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, rail unions and even some senior Labour figures all believe more lines will ease congestion and help the environment.
Transport secretary Ruth Kelly has not ruled the option out completely, but insists it is not the best use of the money available.
But after the opening of the new St Pancras International station, Labour’s transport spokesman in Brussels broke ranks. Brian Simpson, a North West Euro MP, said he would now like to see a new dedicated high-speed line to link Manchester and Liverpool to the new terminus.
He said: “The new station is a fantastic addition to our rail network and will, without doubt, improve considerably journey times between London and Brussels and Paris.
“However, the benefit for rail passengers in the North West of this £800 million investment will be somewhat limited because of our inability to link directly with St Pancras.”
What was needed was a second high-speed line to directly link St Pancras with major cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, so the rest of the country can benefit from the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link,
he said.
“The danger is that with the opening of St Pancras and the go-ahead for London’s Crossrail project, the Government and the railway industry feel the job is done and don’t feel the need to take the next step of linking our other major cities into the European high-speed network.
“At the moment, a train journey from Liverpool or Manchester to Brussels means either getting over to Sheffield or a walk from Euston to St Pancras. Frankly, I don’t believe that is good enough for England’s premier region.”
After the opening of High Speed 1, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers wrote to Ms Kelly to propose a joint project for feasibility studies for more such projects.
Mrs Villiers said: “New high-speed rail lines could take 10 to 20 years to get off the ground.
“Delivering projects like this requires long term strategic work over several Parliaments. It is therefore very important we seek to build a cross-party consensus on this issue if we are to make real progress towards the high-speed rail projects of the future.”
She said the Government’s long-term transport strategy, published in November, had no substance, and consisted of “floating rehashed ideas they know they will never deliver”.
It would “do nothing to solve the chronic overcrowding problems on our rail network, or address rocketing fare increases,” she claimed.
Liberal Democrat transport spokeswoman Susan Kramer told the Commons: “This announcement seems to be a list of every transport idea ministers have read on a website, instead of being a coherent vision for Britain’s future transport system.
“We need a commitment from the Government to invest in a complete high-speed rail network, not just a single line from London to Birmingham.”
The RMT union said that the Government could only tackle global warming by shifting people out of cars and aeroplanes and on to public transport.
A radical change of policy was needed “to shift investment once and for all away from road-building and airport expansion and towards projects like a new North-South high-speed railway line to Scotland”.
In the House of Lords, former railwayman Lord Bradshaw said that given rising oil prices and a likely period of shortages, it was time to plan for a high-speed line to the North.
The Earl of Glasgow said that a high-speed line between London and Scotland “would be environmentally much more preferable to an ever increasing number of flights”.
But Government spokesman Lord Bassam said a high-speed line could cost as much as £30 billion and would not necessarily be the best use of public funds.
“The Government should continue to focus on the key issue of investing in the infrastructure, to ensure that trains run on time, that there are plenty of them and that they are modern, well-equipped and all of those things – which of course are the passengers’ priorities.”