In the past fortnight, the response to the government’s Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) has been almost universally hostile. The chopping of the eastern leg from Birmingham to Leeds and the ‘scaling back’ of the east-west line has invoked particular ire, with cries of the ‘betrayal of the North’ coming from an unlikely coalition of so-called ‘red wall’ Tories and Labour.

On the one hand, it’s reassuring to see Boris Johnston squirming under such massive pressure, alongside their growing number of problems such as sleaze, social care costs, and so on. But on the other hand, there were strong arguments for a fundamental review of HS2, particularly in the light of Covid-19, which many people working in transport believe will lead to long-term changes in people’s travel behaviour—in particular, less business travel and commuting, and more leisure journeys.

As originally conceived, HS2—a very high-speed route (speeds of up to 225 mph) from London to Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester—represents a particular approach to transport and wider spatial planning which prioritises the major cities at the expense (unless there is a complementary plan in place) of smaller towns and cities.

In his foreword to the IRP, Boris Johnson recognised the adverse effect that HS2 to Leeds would have had on other places currently served by fast and frequent trains, writing that ‘under those plans, many places on the existing main lines, such as Doncaster, Huddersfield, Wakefield and Leicester would have seen little improvement, or a worsening, in their services.’

Which is absolutely true. The same applies to the western leg to Manchester, which is still going ahead. In short—tough on Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stafford, and Rugby.

However, whether you are for or against HS2, there is a consensus across the North that regional and local rail networks desperately need investment. It isn’t just a ‘Northern’ issue. People in the South West, East Anglia, and the Midlands will argue that their railways demand investment—they need electrification, new trains, and line and station openings, as well as extra line capacity to accommodate more trains.

And they aren’t wrong. Rather than several different, imperfectly connecting strategies, Britain needs a properly coordinated strategic plan for its rail network. We need an integrated rail strategy with a core ‘InterCity’ network which could include HS2 but extend to other routes such as to West of England and Wales.

Aiming for speeds of up to 160mph, it should link major centres instead of bypassing them. It would require good connections to regional, local rail and light rail services. In doing this, it would be far more like Germany’s approach to rail transport, taking greater account of the needs of large towns and cities between major centres, and with good connectivity to all parts of the rail network.

Such an approach should be a hybrid of new and existing, upgraded, lines. It could be argued that the newly published IRP does some of that, though I’d say it’s more of a ‘politics-led’ plan than anything that is strategic. It tried (and failed) to satisfy politicians in the North with a ragbag of new and upgraded lines and much-needed electrification schemes, notably the Midland Mail Line taking electric trains beyond the south Midlands to Derby and Nottingham, Chesterfield, Sheffield, and Leeds.

This system would also remedy some of the problems of the IRP, including doing justices to some of the places that lose out under recently existing plans. In the IRP, Bradford is the big loser. The short section of line from Leeds to Bradford via New Pudsey will be electrified, shaving a few minutes of journey times. Quite what the trains do when they get to Bradford isn’t said—presumably they’ll speed back to Leeds. Yet all trains from Leeds to Bradford go beyond the city, to Halifax, Hebden Bridge, Rochdale, and Manchester or to Burnley, Blackburn, and Preston.

Any sensible strategy would have seen those lines fully electrified as part of the Bradford scheme. Even better would be a ‘Bradford CrossRail’ for existing regional and additional InterCity services, joining up the two separate routes into the city and permitting a ‘scissors’ shape network north-west of Leeds which would permit new journey options and improved capacity into and out of Bradford.

This government has probably done more than other previous administrations to support line re-openings. Last week, Okehampton got a passenger service back which it lost decades ago as a result of the Beeching cuts. Other potential re-opened routes have been given funding to take forward feasibility studies.

Yet it’s all very piecemeal. Back in the 1970s, British Rail became adept at what it called a ‘rolling programme of electrification’. You do one route then move on to the next, keeping the gangs together and the equipment. That should happen now, under the aegis of state-owned Network Rail (which will become the main element within the new Great British Railways—GBR—in a couple of years).

Combined authorities such as Greater Manchester, West Midlands, and West and South Yorkshire could have key roles to play, and there needs to be a partnership approach between GBR and the regional bodies, rather than the current civil war which has seen Transport for the North stripped of its powers. Johnson has succeeded in uniting local and combined authorities, the business community and the not-for-profit sector across the North in demanding something better than what is on offer. That’s an achievement in itself, and it transcends party boundaries.

Alongside his transport secretary Grant Shapps, Johnson has got to accept that the IRP is fatally flawed—and they have to start seriously engaging with Northern stakeholders to create something better.