The north’s flagship rail scheme has been in planning for 12 years and still lacks a detailed design. The budget stands at £45 billion, but the committee says it was set before the project was defined.
The plan aims to transform train services across the north of England but risks becoming another failed infrastructure project similar to HS2. The committee notes that the scheme has no proper design or realistic budget.
The original concept was a high‑speed line linking Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. It has since been pared down to local upgrades intended to increase speed and frequency.
The government revived the programme in January with a phased £45 billion vision, but the committee doubts the numbers are realistic.
The committee expressed uncertainty that the Department for Transport has learned from past failures, citing HS2's budget overruns and delays.
No convincing plan exists to deliver the aims within the £45 billion cap, and the committee lacks an explanation for how the Treasury arrived at that figure.
The deputy chair noted railways in the north need transformation for jobs and productivity, but warned of repeating loose governance mistakes seen in HS2.
He described the project as almost impressionistic and questioned how the funding cap was set before design or costing.
The committee criticized the decision to involve the agency responsible for HS2 in advising on the scheme, calling it inappropriate.
Regional leaders, including the Greater Manchester mayor, have urged a firmer commitment and greater devolution of transport power.
The committee called on the Department for Transport to clarify within six months whether the scheme is a mega‑project, as this determines governance, scrutiny and funding.
Ministers faced pressure over cheaper alternatives, such as a low‑cost line beyond Birmingham.
The department stated that the scheme would deliver significant rail connectivity and drive growth, jobs and investment.
It also said it would avoid HS2 mistakes by following recommendations and adopting a disciplined, phased approach with detailed technical work before fixing major infrastructure choices.
The department highlighted collaboration with mayors and the creation of joint partnership forums, and noted that engineering designs were underway.
The committee’s full findings emphasize that design should precede cost estimation and that the budget should be capped only after the project scope is defined.
