The Cancellation of HS2’s Northern Leg: A Tragedy for England’s North?
- Hamza Ibrahim
- Nov 26
- 5 min read
Will the cancellation of HS2 negatively contribute to the North-South divide?
Introduction
HS2 was one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in recent British history. It sought
to bring high-speed rail to the UK’s tracks, making Britain more interconnected, with an ease of access to economic hubs throughout the country. It sought to do this first by connecting Birmingham to London, decreasing the travel time between Britain’s “second city” and the capital. Then, its Northern leg was to extend from Birmingham to Manchester, with the other leg connecting to Leeds. However, at 2023’s Conservative Party conference, the Northern leg of the project was cancelled altogether, with the only route continuing being the route that connects Birmingham to London.
This report, therefore, seeks to take a comprehensive look at the motives behind the
cancellation of the Northern leg, the impacts of the cancellation, and what the government
can improve upon should it be re-implemented.
What went wrong with HS2 and what will the impact of the cancellation be?
The Productivity Institute has estimated that over a 10 year period, the costs of the first phase of HS2 increased in real terms by 134%. It was this increase in costs which drove Sunak to cancel the second phase of the project which sought to connect the Midlands to the North, namely to Leeds, Manchester and beyond in a Y-shaped arrangement. These high costs were underpinned by a higher speed of 360kph (compared to most other countries who use 300kph), meaning higher costs to ensure the trains avoided bridges and viaducts, as well as failures of delivery and delays.
At the heart of the discussion surrounding HS2 is whether these pitfalls justify the Northern
leg’s cancellation. According to Fai and Tomlinson, Britain has one of the starkest levels of
regional inequality in the advanced industrial world. The 2019 Election saw this used for
rhetoric of ‘levelling up’, with HS2 being at the heart of this agenda. The cancellation of the
Northern leg has been met with more local rail upgrades from the government. Yet, these
upgrades will lack the impact of HS2 due to scale and because the Northern leg was widely
believed to deliver the biggest gains of the project largely due to the potential of the hubs
being served.
Two emerging Northern hubs that would have been served by the Northern leg are Leeds and Manchester, which have rapidly emerged as some of the biggest economic hubs in the country outside of London. NatWest recently named the two cities as being at the forefront of business growth in the UK, particularly in terms of mid-market activity. Further, Leeds is
both the biggest financial and legal hub outside of the capital. Considering that according to
the 2019 William Rails Review, commuting for work makes up more than half of the trips made by railway, HS2 would have made travel to these two hubs both more efficient and time effective whilst also making them increasingly interconnected with the capital. Further afield from Britain, high speed rail in Italy, where 34% of the country lives within 30 minutes of high speed rail, gives people greater access to job opportunities, education and health facilities. It has also contributed to an extra 2.6% in per capita GDP nationally, as well as a peak of 5.6% for the hubs served by the network. These figures demonstrate the growth that could have been possible for regions in the UK, as well as on a national scale.
Policy recommendations
Re-establish the Northern leg of HS2 once the initial phase is established and
when it is considered fiscally viable to do so
Clearly, the Northern Leg of HS2 would have had significant economic benefits to the UK. The project in its entirety would make the UK economy more interconnected and offer strong returns. Further, it would draw upon already rapidly evolving hubs such as Leeds and Manchester, potentially helping to make them flagship destinations outside of the capital, not just for work reasons but also for tourism and leisure reasons.
Fiscal viability is also an important factor to consider, especially because the cancellation of the project was largely done as a result of costs and the present state of the economy. Therefore, it is also important to be realistic as to when the leg can be re-established. Further, its re-establishment should be aided by the newly formed National Infrastructure Service & Transformation Authority (NISTA), who can help fix previous issues in delivery.
Speeds should be reduced to 300kph and there should be a lower frequency of
trains than initially planned in an attempt to cut costs
Due to the fact that a lot of the costs incurred by HS2 are related to speed, it would make
sense to reduce the speed of the Northern leg of HS2 should it be re-established. Whilst most places with high-speed rail utilise 300kph of speed, HS2 utilises 360kph. Therefore, it would make sense to cut back these speeds to 300kph should there be a re-introduction of HS2. This would still offer significantly higher speeds than non-high speed lines.
The Government should support high potential areas outside of HS2’s Northern
line through regeneration projects
Examples abroad point to high speed rail leading to an “economy of two speeds”. Britain should seek to avoid this and bridge the divide between high speed and lower speed rail. Therefore, Government Social Research should conduct more research on high potential areas outside of the line, and government should allocate funding accordingly to facilitate appropriate regeneration projects in these areas, ensuring all benefit from an economy increasingly based on “levelling up”.
Conclusion
Evidently, the Northern Leg of HS2 would provide an abundance of benefits for the North of
England. The scrapping of the Northern leg of the service, whilst perhaps being a viable
decision in the face of economic uncertainty, puts the North at a disadvantage. High speed
rail can provide businesses and people with more opportunities, as well as making the UK a
more coherent and interconnected economy. It is in the long term interests of the country for the cancellation to eventually be reversed.
Bibliography
Al Jazeera (2023) Why UK PM Sunak axed part of high-speed rail link HS2. 4 October.
Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/4/why-uk-pm-sunak-axed-part-of-high-speed-rail-link-hs2
Cascetta, E., Cartenì, A., Henke, I. and Pagliara, F. (2020) ‘Economic growth, transport
accessibility and regional equity impacts of high-speed railways in Italy: ten years ex post evaluation and future perspectives’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, pp. 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.008
Department for Transport (2019) The role of the railway in Great Britain: Evidence paper. The Williams Rail Review. Available at:
Department for Transport (2013) The Economic Case for HS2. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ed959e5274a2e8ab48972/S_A_1_Economic_case_0.pdf
Fai, F.M. and Tomlinson, P.R. (2023) ‘Levelling up or down? Addressing regional
inequalities in the UK’, Contemporary Social Science, 18(3–4), pp. 285–297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2023.2282161
Munro, A. (2018) ‘HS2 railway, UK – why the country needs it’, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport. https://doi.org/10.1680/jtran.18.00040
NatWest Group (2025) UK’s business hotspots revealed. Available at:
National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (2025) Homepage. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-infrastructure-and-service-transformation-authority
West Yorkshire Combined Authority. (2019) Leeds: West Yorkshire’s story. Available at:
https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/about-us/west-yorkshires-story/leeds/
Winch, G. (2025) So, What Went Wrong with HS2? Productivity Insights Paper No. 052. The Productivity Institute. Available at:
