Prof Paul Salveson supports high-speed rail but does not believe the scheme represents value for money, Andrew Pendleton says it will deepen the existing regional divide, while John O’Dwyer thinks it is the wrong business model

As a contributor to the New Economics Foundation report (Scrap HS2 and pour £56bn into regions, says thinktank, 20 March) and someone who has lived and worked all his life in the north, I think the response from some of the northern city leaders to the report is misplaced (Letters, 22 March).

Leaders of cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham will get lots of free cash to redevelop inner-urban areas around the HS2 terminals, but that doesn’t mean HS2 will be good for the north as a whole.

If the leaders of Oldham, Bolton, Wakefield, Blackburn, Kirklees and Wolverhampton were crying out for HS2 it would be more convincing. They stand to benefit very little from this scheme, which will suck life further out of the north and its larger towns, towards London.

As someone who has spent a lifetime in the railway industry, it’s interesting to talk to colleagues in rail who are not able to speak publicly on HS2 but have strong views on it. There’s a small minority who are totally in favour, on the basis that any investment in rail is a good thing. There is an equally small minority against it completely. Then there’s a large group in the middle, and I count myself among them, who support high-speed rail but believe that HS2, as configured at present, is not a good scheme and represents very poor value for money.

The UK needs a properly planned high-speed network that is well connected to the conventional network, serving a much wider spread of towns and cities. And there needs to be ongoing, complementary investment in the local and regional network across the country with stronger support to the nascent UK rail manufacturing industry. Perhaps the city leaders should take time to read the report; it’s on their side.

Prof Paul Salveson

Bolton, Greater Manchester

• The New Economics Foundation drew data from HS2 Ltd’s own most recent assessment to show that the benefits passengers will enjoy from the high-speed line will be captured by London more than anywhere else. According to the company’s own modelling, London’s share of these benefits will outstrip any reasonable assumption about the relative future growth of the capital compared with the rest of the country. It will deepen the existing regional divide.

Midland and northern cities will, therefore, only be able to capture wider benefits with substantial additional investments, such as local transport links and development of sites around stations. But does the north really need a new rail line to London to achieve this? If Whitehall gave each a share of the HS2 budget, is a high-speed link to London really what they would choose?

Of the £48bn earmarked for expenditure by Network Rail on the remaining rail network, serving smaller cities and towns as well as large city regions, only around £10bn is for “enhancements”, and even this sum is uncertain. Rail schemes will have to compete for central government funding with other infrastructure projects.

We propose a wider package of investment in the railways worth £55.2bn as an alternative to HS2, and that priority should be given to northern schemes worth £18.9bn, such as some of those outlined in Transport for the North’s recent plan. As it stands, with Whitehall in the driving seat, it’s still uncertain whether one of the three existing east-west lines across the north of England will even benefit from full electrification.

Northern leaders’ commitment to HS2 is very understandable under the current circumstances, in which the other regions and nations must still wait for handouts from London. HS2 is a symptom of this approach, and until we challenge and change this, the UK will remain deeply divided.

Andrew Pendleton

Report author and director of policy, New Economics Foundation

• While there is no doubt that the north needs increased rail capacity and connectivity, HS2 is the wrong business model. It is akin to Concorde in the 1960s – luxury and speed for elite travellers. What is needed is the rail equivalent of the Boeing 747.

John O’Dwyer

Steeple Claydon, Buckinghamshire

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition