Sadly, it's not so unusual though to find a public consultation that seems to have been put together by a woolly-minded
PR▸ consultant trying to impart the current government's mindless slogans (sorry - that should be "policy objectives"), reflected in the criteria said to apply.
I think applying these criteria as set out and repeated below means-
1 -
Alignment to ‘levelling-up' objectives - i. e. none in London or the South of England - all pass this test.
2 -
Connected and easy to get to across the UK▸ - well, all are on the railway system! But I'd guess Birmingham scores best, with York and Newcastle (subject to restoring direct trains to Reading

) also doing well
3 -
Opportunities for Great British Railways - what on earth does this mean? - places with lots of currently empty railway accommodation? (for which I leave our industry insiders to comment/advise) or places where it is likely to be easier to recruit good quality staff ?- which probably counts against Crewe, Doncaster and Derby. Citizens/natives of those towns are invited to correct me if I am wrong!
4 -
Railway heritage and links to the network - all have as much railway heritage as you can get, I cannot work out what the "connected to the network element" adds to criteria 2.
5 -
Value for money - depends on the availability and suitability of any current surplus railway accommodation - beyond my knowledge - see 3 above.
6 -
Public support - this is a circular argument - when you vote, you have to bear in mind public support, but until everyone's voted, how will we know which location has most public support?
So my vote is -stop messing around - employ someone who knows what they are doing to survey the available office space (both Network Rail assets and others) near Birmingham New Street, York and Newcastle Central Stations, prepare a report and submit it to the board of
GBR▸ or Shapps (whoever really takes the decision) and then follow their recommendations!