Top of page.

East Midlands Liberal Democrats

We store cookies on your device to make sure we give you the best experience on this website. I'm fine with this - Turn cookies off

Background Briefing - Second phase of HS2 proposed route announced

The Government has announced its preferred route and station locations for a new high speed line from Birmingham to Manchester and through the East Midlands to South Yorkshire.

Government will now be consulting with key stakeholders over the next few months to refine the proposals, before launching a formal public consultation later this year. Once the Government has agreed final proposals, the necessary statutory powers to build the line will be sought through a 'Hybrid Bill' in the next Parliament (post 2015). Construction of the line will start post 2026 and be complete

In the East Midlands, the proposed route follows closely the line of the M42/A42, tunnels under East Midlands Airport, and then closely follows the M1 heading north, stopping at a new interchange station 'East Midlands Hub' at Toton sidings (currently a rail depot) on the edge of Nottingham. A new infrastructure maintenance depot is also proposed at Staveley near Chesterfield. The proposed East Midlands Hub would be a combined HS2 and 'classic' rail station, with rail access to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester. There would also be a new road access from the A52 and an extension of the Nottingham Tram to the station.

A set of maps providing a detailed depiction of the HS2 phase two West Midlands to Leeds via the East Midlands and Manchester line of route are available here

Link to Nick Clegg launching HS2

From: Steve Coltman - Loughborough - 01 February 2013 10:07

What do we all think of the HS2 proposals as they affect the East Midlands?

According to the Leics Mercury the route will tunnel under the airport and emerge just where a new rail distribution depot is planned, jeopardising 6,000 jobs. And the main station is at Toton.

There are few government policies that are truly regional in nature, but this is one of them. I fear we have not been on the ball.

Steve Coltman.

From Stuart Bray - Bosworth - Feb 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I have to admit I would welcome a discussion on it

I have been asked by the local press in my patch for my views and I will admit I fudged it a bit, though this was easy enough for me to do as it doesn't really impact environmentally on my district - and the economic benefit will be marginal too as the station distance would mean it wouldn't be any quicker to get to London for example than the conventional route.

The environmental impact is a huge concern in other parts of Leicestershire e.g. NW Leicestershire and the Tory County Council Leader (who's own home it goes close to) is making a big thing about it and has already said he intends to put a motion opposing it to the next County Council meeting on March 20th

Stuart Stuart Bray - Leader of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council(Lib Dem, Hinckley Castle Ward)Tel. 07711 904785

From Alisdair Calder McGregor - City of Nottingham - 10.31am

I did ask Phil Knowles about this, and have been looking for some form of consensus on the issue, so far with only limited success.

I've also spoken to David Watts (Broxtowe) and Jonathan Sneade (Erewash) about it.

The feeling in Nottingham is broadly in favour, providing that we are going to see it sensibly connected to the NET system (which would require more funding). I have to confess I'm mystified as to why they didn't consider a station *at* EMA itself, as that would connect EMA directly to London and reduce the pressure on the Heathrow runway debate.

The whole issue with the tunnel has only just come up on my radar, and I am very concerned over the regional jobs issue.

Alisdair Calder McGregor - Policy Officer, City of Nottingham Local Party, Treasurer, Nottingham & Nottinghamshire Constituencies Group

From Phil Knowles - Harborough - 10.31am

The opportunity to put forward a motion for possible debate at Regional Conference is still available.

I was asked a few days ago what I felt our Regional Policy should be.

My answer was simple, the matter would be viewed in different parts of the Region in different ways. Welcomed by some for the positives, decried by others for possible negatives whilst others would not feel they had a view either way.

I look forward to hearing members views/comments and to receiving any formally submitted motion for possible consideration.

Cllr Phil Knowles - Policy Officer East Midlands Region

From David Bill - Bosworth - 10.34

Parallel to the HS2 issue we have the more immediate issue of electrification of the Midland Main Line.

This has been an issue on which we have campaigned for many years and which now looks likely to be fulfilled.

I have recently attended an event with Network Rail and East Midlands Trains and have followed this up with a compilation of some of the issues arising out of this plan.

When this list of issues has been clarified and confirmed I will make the outcome available to everyone.

I think that this project is more likely to proceed than HS2 despite everything the Government is saying.

Cllr David Bill

From Stuart Bray - Bosworth - Feb 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Phil is absolutely right of course.

Whatever a Regional Conference debate decides it doesn't stop Local Parties or Council Groups saying something different

It just might be interesting to have a discussion to see what other people think and how it will impact on other areas.

From David Bill - Bosworth - 11.00

I should declare an interest as a member of Railfuture but the attached statement might help to inform our debate as Lib Dems.

Along with others I have been working on an alternative HS2 strategy which involves using the M1 alignment and thus serving Leicester and the East Midlands as well as the North.

This involves using the Great Central alignment and feeding into the current route through Leicester thus avoiding large scale disruption of the countryside or built -up areas.

If plans are made available outlining this strategy I will make them available to anyone interested as well as details of aspects of MML electrification.

From: Railfuture Media [] Sent: 29 January 2013 11:12

Subject: Flawed thinking on High Speed 2

Rail campaigners have reacted with disappointment to proposals for the second phase of HS2.

"It seems to be a continuation of the flawed thinking that gave us a controversial route through the Chilterns" says Bruce Williamson of Railfuture.

"Whilst we need the capacity that HS2 will give us, it's important that the government gets it right, which they're showing little sign of doing"

"Out of town parkway stations as proposed for Sheffield (at Meadowhall) and East Midlands (at Toton) will do little to improve connectivity, and may make road congestion worse whilst negating any journey time improvements.

HS2 must serve existing city centre stations.

or example, Toton is of no use to people in Leicester, who seem to have been left off the high speed map altogether, as have the people of Stoke on Trent"

"We welcome the decision to leave Heathrow off the network for the time being. There was never going to be enough passenger demand to justify a Heathrow spur, particularly as most of Heathrow's customers come from the south of England. The Heathrow spur was one example of the skewed thinking that gave us Old Oak Common and the Chilterns route.

Other better alternatives exist which would be cheaper and quicker to implement, and we will continue to push for these, as well as city centre stations.

We remain willing to work with government on the vital issues of high speed rail and integrated transport"

Notes to editors: Railfuture is the UK's leading independent organisation campaigning for better rail services for both passengers and freight.

Railfuture's website can be found at:

For further information and comment please contact: Bruce Williamson, media spokesman Tel: 0117 927 2954 Mobile: 07759 557389

Railfuture is the campaigning name of the Railway Development Society Limited, a (not for profit) Company Limited by Guarantee.

Registered in England and Wales No 5011634.

Registered Office:- 24 Chedworth Place, Tattingstone, Suffolk IP9 2ND -

From Kate Smith - Amber Valley - 11.42am

And that's without considering the fairly new East Midlands Parkway station, next to Ratcliffe power station and about 8 miles from Toton Sidings.

he river gets in the way, for sure, but are we looking at a failure of joined-up thinking here ??

Surely EMP (especially given its title) should be part of any new network ?

I imagine Chesterfield folks are not best pleased at being apparently by-passed either - or is that the wrong way to read this ?

From Paul Holmes - Chesterfield - 11.47

I have not really looked at the details as I understand it does not impact on Chesterfield except slightly just to the North (in the fringe of a Borough Ward but not in the Constituency).

In general I think High Speed Rail is a good long term investment both environmentally and economically -but of course, as with wind farms - those immediately impacted will not be so happy. As a historian I recall that the Duke of Rutland in the early nineteenth century bitterly opposed the building of the new fangled steam railway across his estate in Derbyshire as it would frighten the horses and sheep and ruin the view. The modern Duke of Rutland is all in favour of reopening the 'picturesque line' because it would bring more paying tourists into Haddon Hall and the local Derbyshire tourist industry (which is now the largest single employer in Derbyshire).

As for the impact on Midland Mainline - I used that route twice a week for 9 years 2001-2010 and it is bursting at the seams, with passenger numbers predicated to grow further as for all rail in the UK. When I used to lobby the train companies about getting more freight on to rail and off the roads they would always point out that this could only be done by cutting passenger traffic - who would then go by road instead. Building a brand new line will create extra capacity instead of over loading already over burdened routes.

The enormously profitable First Class passengers on Midland Mainline might well be affected - but as politicians we are not here to protect the profit margins of a near monopoly provider and there is plenty of demand from other passengers (and freight) that can fill any spare capacity if First Class coaches were one day reduced in numbers on Midland Mainline.

Paul Holmes

From David Watts - Broxtowe 11.57

I will happily draft a motion to submit to regional conference.

To be totally blunt about the position though, HS2 is a vitally important part of the future infrastructure of this country and we need to support it.

The station at Toton is in my patch and we have a political consensus supporting it, and all three parties have worked together to ensure that we were the chosen site.

It would be unforgiveable of the party regionally to stand in the way of such a massive investment and a massive jobs boost for the region.

I do despair when I hear comments like it will jeopardise 6,000 jobs at the transport hub. This can only be made by people who haven't actually read the documentation.

I was amazed to hear the MP for North West Leicestershire (a Tory I believe) using this argument on the media just minutes after the material was published and before he had any time to assess what is said about it (as with the tunnel under the airport etc).

The Tories may be happy with uninformed debate but we should make sure we are aware of what the material actually says before criticising.

For the record the report acknowledges that there would be a potential conflict of train movements at the transport hub and commits HS2 to working with the rail companies, local authorities and other interested groups to resolve this.

Given that the proposed line is provisional and out for consultation at the moment I don't think that we can really ask for more.

There are improvements that I think can be made to the proposals as they stand.

For instance access to the Toton station by road is proposed via a new junction from the A52. That is a road already gridlocked at peak times and by creating a new junction 25A on the M1 we can access the station and create an access to Stanton, a proposed site for a significant amount of new housing in Erewash, at the same time.

This is the sort of positive feedback we should be engaging in.

Support for HS2 is a Lib-Dem policy and is something that we should be championing across the region.

We will all benefit from increased capacity on the railways (not just those who use them) and greater interconnectivity between different cities in the UK.

I thought that it was telling that as soon as the announcement was made about phase 2 MP's from Edinburgh were asking when it would be extended to them.


From Steve Coltman - Loughborough - 12.08

I would prefer an open debate discussing the pros and cons rather than debating a motion that pre-supposes it is a good thing.

I think we should be open-minded about it.

How much time do we have to debate this at conference?

Would it be worth inviting guest speakers pro and anti?

We would need an hour at least to make this worthwhile.


From Lucy Care - Derby - 13.39

The process we have for HS2 was started by Lord Adonis in about 2008 or 9. He went round lots of councils getting support for his idea (or frightening councils into offering support to avoid a different city getting the station). Smart.

As a result it seems to me that our future rail policy is being based on one man's pet vision, and justified by reports written to support this vision.

HS2 might be the best thing since sliced bread, and the right thing for the country. It might be the best way to invest £billions to revitalise our economy and wean people out of short haul flights and private cars. But I don't think that there has been an open-minded assessment to show this.

There is lack of capacity on the Midland Main Line - but this can be improved with line straightening (an active project), more passing line sections (for express trains to overtake freight/stopping trains), and electrification (which allows faster acceleration/deceleration). Other lines could have similar treatments. Just as motorways can be given extra lanes, in places we could be building extra parallel rail lines on the same routes to take more trains.

History generally shows that when transport improves, the greatest economic gains go to the existing strongest area. So my expectation would be that HS2 will further fuel the southeast's over-heating, not improve the north.

Last night on QuestionTime (from Lancaster) there was little enthusiasm for HS2 - getting to Manchester to connect to the route wouldn't save time overall. In letters to the Guardian, people were suggesting east-west rail investment or to start building HS2 from the northern end.

I think that the most important thing is probably to ensure that the stations are as close as possible to where people want to go, and if not, that the onward journeys are as slick and easy as possible. I think that we also need to ensure that the HS trains can link into existing rail networks - and where needed to enhance routes for high(ish) speed rail. We could then achieve significant journey time improvements to beyond where HS2 has been built/is planned for much less cost/disruption. Finally I'd like someone to decide what we actually mean by 'high speed'. The energy use increases at the cube of the speed, so high speed rail is not good for climate change...

Our parliamentarians are all for it, however.

I'm still a sceptic - or wet blanket, if you like!

Lucy - Derby

From Paul Holmes - Chesterfield - 14.43

To take HS2 into Chesterfield would mean compulsory purchase and demolition of lots of houses/businesses in order to clear a route (it cannot travel on ordinary lines such as already exist and have no spare capacity anyway) -the same I would imagine with most existing urban centres.

Paul Holmes

From Sam Boote - Rushcliffe - 16.42

I'm concerned that nothing has been said about directly linking HS2 to HS1 (and thence to the Continental rail network, so that through trains can be run or that passengers have easy cross-platform transfers). The missing link between Euston and St. Pancras is good news for London taxi-drivers but for no-one else. The HS2 scheme is another example of something designed by the London mafia for their own convenience.

If someone had asked me where the obvious place for an East Midlands hub is (without reference to HS2 or anything else), I would have said it should be equidistant from EMA, J24 and the Parkway station. This is where all the transport modes coincide. I can't think how Toton satisfies this requirement.

From Deborah Newton-Cooke - Brussells - 19.11pm

Interesting debate. Good luck for Conference debate if it goes ahead. I know in France villages fight to have a stop near them, so it is not just Paris that gains.

Then again they build extensions to the TGV network in 5 years, not 20.

What happened to the plan to extend the Eurostar up the East Coast mailine and have a stop in Newark?

Sadly, on both cost and time, think of a number and double it.

Who knows if it will ever be built.

From Stuart Bray - Bosworth - Feb 1, 2013 at 19.16 pm

Dave - I would welcome a discussion on where you say about the 6,000 jobs. I've just got back from the Leics LEP board and officers are adamant that the Roxhill development for the new rail freight hub which is what is bringing the 6000 jobs near East Mids Airport IS seriously under threat. So the message isn't just coming from Tory nimby councillors but from Business locally and the LEP.

From Lucy Care - Derby - 19.34pm

In general people travel according to the time it takes, not the miles travelled. Thus by making travel faster, more people are likely to want to travel. This has been found with roads too - build bypasses/dual carriageways so that it takes an hour rather than two to get to Auntie Aud's - and we now go for lunch once a fortnight, while previously we couldn't have afforded the time to go more than once a month!

Thus more people travel, further/more often.

I believe that there have been assessments done on all this, but the assumptions being made - as I said before - may well have been made to justify a decision that has already been taken.

The way to get people to travel less is for it to cost more or take longer. However the reasons for HS2 are a) economic and b) to keep up with other countries (a rather negative/arrogant reason which contributes to our rushing headlong off the climate cliff).

From Scott Walker - City of Nottingham - Feb 1, 2013 at 20.31pm

I've been trying to cut through all the bluster on the internet and get to the facts - very difficult. I've not managed to find any comment or press release from the proposed rail freight depot developer, Roxhill. What I have found is a map of the site that is proposed for the rail freight depot and a detailed diagram of the proposed tunnel under East Mids airport. It is clear that the the tunnel emerges in the middle of the rail freight site and cuts right across it. It's pretty clear from the diagram of the freight holding buildings that HS2 would cut straight through them, as both projects are proposed.

Map of Roxhill Rail Freight Depot site:

Illustration of the Rail Freight Depot structures:

HS2 Tunnel detailed map:

From David Watts - Broxtowe 20.33 pm

Can I suggest the following as a motion to debate at conference. If people want to suggest amendments or alterations to the text I am completely open to them. I have tried to create something sufficiently structured to ensure a good debate can be held, but is not too weighted one way or the other:

Conference notes the announcement from the Government that the HS2 rail line is to go ahead with a station in the East Midlands at Toton. Conference further notes the announcement previously from the Government that the Midland Mainline is to be electrified through the rest of its distance.

Conference welcomes the commitment from the Government to invest in public transport schemes in the East Midlands, particularly given that this region has often been the Cinderella region for investment. Conference further welcomes the commitment from the Government to plan for long term infrastructure investment in the United Kingdom.

Conference notes that as part of the proposals for the HS2 it is suggested that the M1 will need to be moved near Trowell. Conference also notes that the Erewash District Council proposes to allow a significant amount of new housing to be built at the site of the former Stanton Ironworks near Trowell, but that access to this site presents a major impediment to this development. The proposed work on the M1 presents an ideal opportunity to resolve this problem and to also provide easy road access to the proposed new station by creating a new junction on the M1 giving access to both of these sites.

Conference finally notes that the scheme as currently proposed is not due to start operations until 2033. By contrast to this the first TGV lines in France took about five years to construct and the Channel Tunnel took six years to build.

Conference resolves:

1. To work together with the Government and other interested parties to ensure that the H2 route brings about the maximum benefit for the East Midlands with the minimum disruption or negative impacts and to participate fully in the consultations about the proposed route. In particular conference asserts that any development of HS2 must not prevent the proposed development of a rail freight hub in North West Leicestershire.

2. To call on the Government to create a Junction 25A on the M1 near Trowell to create access both to the Toton Sidings and to Stanton Ironworks.

3. To call on the Government to ensure that to the maximum extent possible contracts for the building of new rolling stock for both the Midland Mainline and the HS2 are placed with British companies.

4. Conference notes with concern the proposed timescale for HS2 and calls on the Government to do all that it can to ensure that this is speeded up, whilst at the same time ensuring that the concerns of residents are respected.


From Alisdair Calder McGregor - City of Nottingham - 20.44pm


Add 5. Conference calls on the government to ensure that connection to the NET is included & funded in the HS2 proposals for the East Midlands

Sadly it's doubtful I will be at the conference to move this - I will ask Scott or Morgan to do so

From David Allen - Rushcliffe - 2 February 2013 00:02 am

Just an off-the-wall thought but - Suppose it was a proposal to rip out our national telephone network, and spend billions replacing it with something untried and innovative which claimed to be superior - How many of us politicians would dive straight in and say "I know just what to do. Go for it!" Or else, would say "That's a ludicrous non-starter, I know for sure"?

Well, if we wouldn't rush to judgment about a complex telecom scheme, why should we rush to judgment about a complex rail scheme, about which our depth of real knowledge is (for the great majority of us) equally lacking?

I'm pleased to see how many people have commented here with a judicious Don't Know. They are the wise ones, I think!

David Allen

From Tom Snowdon - Amber Valley - 9.15am

I don't claim any specific knowledge in this area, so I would like to see the balance of evidence and arguments that say this is the right thing to do.

My concerns are that it will take too long, that the impact of this infrastructure investment will be too small in the short term to encourage growth, and that any benefits outside of London will be marginal.

We should have the benefits clearly proven before this project starts. Is this the best investment we can make, at this time, to prime the economy for growth ?

I look forward to a good debate at regional conference.

Tom Snowdon

From Steve Coltman - Loughborough - 14.20 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with David Allen on this. I think David Watt's motion touches on a lot of important issues but too many to digest in one debate or one motion.

We need to learn more about the issues before we come to a definite conclusion one way or another, and there is much to learn. I would devote as much time as we can spare at this conference to simply hearing the arguments for and against, perhaps with guest speakers?

Next point - is there a timetable we have to work to? There is no point in coming to the right conclusion too late to influence events, when does the consultation period end?

There are few issues important enough to warrant an extra conference but maybe this is? Perhaps half a day devoted to discussing and deciding our position on just this matter? It seems to me this country has been blighted by poor government as long as I can remember, either badly thought-out by government, or unduly influenced by lobbyists, or the product of dogma or all three. We need to dig deep, understand the issues properly then lobby hard to get our views across, no point in doing things half-baked.

So, can I recommend just an open-ended debate but, for now, no attempt to come to a definite conclusion?


From Paul Holmes - Chesterfield - 14.43

Ref David's comments though -no one is proposing to 'rip out a national system' and replace it.

HS2 does not rip out Midland Mainline or the M1 it is an extra, specifically built for High Speed travel (like the ones in Japan, France, China, Germany etc that are already built and of proven value) and providing completely extra capacity to an already overloaded system.

From Scott Walker - City of Nottingham - Feb 2, 2013 at 19.40 pm

Steve, it looks like the proper consultation period hasn't started yet. Currently they are only consulting on compensation arrangements. Looking back at the phase one consultation they allowed five months for it, we can only guess there will be similar timescales for phase two. I've seen speculation online that the consultation won't begin until after the summer recess, but it's just speculation. The DfT says they'll be announcing consultation dates shortly.

From David Watts - Broxtowe 19.39pm

I posted this earlier but it looks like it has disappeared so many apologies if people end up getting it twice.

It is clear that there is a desire to discuss matters at conference. We know that we can do that with a motion as Phil has told us that we can, but if we didn't have a motion is there any other way of having a discussion about it? Perhaps one of the conference organisers or someone from the exec. could let us know whether that would be possible or not.

From Roger Jackson - Mid Derbyshire February 3 3.48am

High speed rail is one of those issues where the argument in favour is quite compelling, but not in a sound bite, so is vulnerable to superficial counter arguments. As I cannot manage a short note, can I ask your patience for a long one!

There are many arguments in favour of public transport in general. Not just that it tends to be more energy efficient but that it is accessible to people who do not have access to private transport. This may be, for example, because they are too poor, too young, too old or disabled (eg Blind) Too make public transport work it has to work as an integrated whole; one is very lucky to have a single service that goes from where one is to where one wants to be.

In order to avoid a painful subsidy per passenger, it also needs to carry large volumes; this means that it has to be competitive with private transport (which is mostly accessible to people with most spending power), requiring a delicate balance of speed and cost to the passenger. Throughout the world there is a consensus that the best compromise is to use cheap low speed transport (ie buses outside major cities) for short distances and railways for medium to longer distances. This latter is needed to approach parity with the end to end journey times of private transport, which requires trains to have much higher cruising speeds to (partly) compensate for the time spent getting to the station, waiting and changing etc. Long distance coaches being limited to the same (or lower) speed limits as cars cannot possibly compete.

In Britain the main (only?) advantage of privatisation was the astonishing ability of TOCs to extract money from the Treasury, so we now have enough support to attract a serious proportion of the market to railway transport. This is naturally beginning to overload the existing railway infrastructure (only partly because of years of economy driven contraction) The first thoughts after the war in Europe about capacity expansion were SNCF's plans to quadruple the bottleneck over Blaisy-Bas. However they realised that it would be idiosyncratic to build new infrastructure to the requirements of a steam railway (flat but curvy) when modern motive power would better fit a motorway profile (hilly but straight). Hence their thinking evolved into the trend setting PSE LGV.

However the main area of divergence is the extent to which new lines should be integrated into the heritage network facilitating the extension of high speed train services off the high speed lines. There seem to be three basic approaches :-

a) Germany where the Neubaustrecke have been introduced almost piecemeal to bypass slow stretches, combined with Ausbaustrecke where existing alignments have been improved. This enables a complete continuum of services from ICE to Regionalbahn on a completely integrated network. However intercity speed are not (in general) very impressive.

b) France where the LGVs and their services are quite distinct with some new 'Parkway' stations, but they do go into 19th century stations in major cities and services run far beyond the end of the LGV along classic lines. Intercity speeds are as good as anywhere in the world.

c) Japan where the Shinkansen are quite separate from the classic network and with very little inter-running of trains. This is partly forced upon them by the different track gauges. Very good speeds between Shinkansen stations.

Andrew McNaughton (Technical Director of HS2, whose personality dominates the proposals) seems very keen on the Japanese model and proudly shows how towns have grown up around Shinkansen stations built on green field sites. (Do we want this?) Unfortunately it is difficult to follow either European model exactly because, British stations tend to be much smaller than in France or Germany and would present capacity limitations. Also we do suffer from an inconveniently small loading gauge and British HSLs are, very sensibly, being built to a much more generous size, that would accommodate double deck trains for example. However even DfT acknowledge this is not an insuperable problem, proposing to develop a separate fleet of 'Classic Compatible' trains for services extending beyond HS2.

The main doubts about the current proposals are that only Euston and Manchester are co-located with existing stations and all their connectivity. Even Leeds is a quarter of a mile short of City Station (so someone at the back of a long train would have to walk half a mile)

Curzon St. is even further from New St. and Sheffield is served by an out of town station (though well connected by train and tram).

Then there's Toton for which DfT are proposing a whole new NetworkRail infrastructure to connect it with anything!

Roger Jackson

Mid Derbyshire

From -Terry Holt - Rushcliffe and currently chairman East Mids. Branch of RAILFUTURE) - February 21 2013

At our branch committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, we all agreed that HS2 was good news.

The route as defined is broadly correct, although we were surprised that the route north of Toton follows the M1 rather than the ErewashValley railway line.

However we were very concerned about the choice of Toton as the site for the East Mids. station. The road access to both Derby and Nottingham is along the already crowded A52 and is not accessed by the current rail passenger network, which we regard as fundamental to the success of the project. It may present a good regeneration case but the pressure for development on the remaining green space between the two cities will be hard to resist.

We would prefer the station to be sited on a split level at East Mids. Parkway adjacent to where HS2 crosses the Midland Main Line. This would need a slight route amendment about 200metres south but also saves disturbing an important archealogical site at Red Hill. This option gives access to East Mids. Airport, and easy road access to both cities via the A453 or A50 or A6 and also retains the proximity to the M1. However, the greatest merit of this option is access to the existing main passenger rail network, - even Leicester would then benefit with better access by rail to the North!

Terry Holt

East Mids. Railfuture - Branch Chairman