Rory Sutherland's view: HS2 should be abandoned

[The Planner]

That is a long time into the future. But.....
Keeping the OOC to Aylesbury section then running onto an upgraded Chiltern with longer trains to Birmingham. Also from north of Rugby largely reuse the Gt.Central trackbed to Aylesbury then branch into HS2 to London. Two ways into London. WCML splits at Rugby. WCML services into Euston and OOC.

How long into the future? So you are still spending to upgrade Chiltern and presumably a bigger Moor St to accomodate all the extra trains (which wouldnt e removed off the WCML as you'd still be running Birmingham International , Coventry etc to Euston). HS2 is on the Great Central track bed, so your still building HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

As Alex implies take passenger off Euston onto the underused and equally fast Chiltern to free up capacity for freight on the WCML.

It would remove 2tph at best off the fasts, a Birmingham train would still run. Freight runs on the slows, 1 semi fast train on the slows moved to the fast eats the released capacity immediately. Chiltern is not equally fast.

 

[yorkie]

Who is Rory Sutherland? Why should I care what his views are?

Not someone of any particular importance; they don't seem to have any credentials or knowledge in respect of railway matters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

You have been slaughtered, in your futile attempt to justify one billion per mile.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not convinced that many - if indeed any - readers of this forum would share this opinion.

 

[AlexSJW]

The current transport minister, is just continuing the 'blame the tories' rhetoric.

You will find that it was labours Transport minister, Lord Adonis, that stated HS2 will run at up to 250mph. And that happened before the Tories won the election. So let's leave the idea that HS2 is a "Tory vanity project" in the bin, where such rhetoric belongs!

The Labour offering was just a concept. No more. It was all Tory from then onwards. The Tories used Adonis.

How long into the future? So you are still spending to upgrade Chiltern and presumably a bigger Moor St to accomodate all the extra trains (which wouldnt e removed off the WCML as you'd still be running Birmingham International , Coventry etc to Euston). HS2 is on the Great Central track bed, so your still building HS2.

The diesel Chiltern needs upgrading anyhow as it is dirty diesel, so that is not an extra cost.

You are playing the cost angle. Whatever approach I have suggested it will be infinitely cheaper than continuing to spend one billion per mile on this straight and flat as possible vanity railway. And no it is not a capacity issue, the daisy they keep grasping at.

One point is reusing the Gt.Central from Rugby to Aylesbury, making it four track gives local services to a number of towns. So great added value.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That is a long time into the future. But.....
Keeping the OOC to Aylesbury section then running onto an upgraded Chiltern with longer trains to Birmingham.

Aylesbury isn’t on the chiltern mainline.

You have been slaughtered, in your futile attempt to justify one billion per mile.

Look the £1bn a mile is clearly absolutely ridiculous and the whole way through costs will need to be controlled.

But fundamentally even at good costs it would probably cost £20bn or something to do London-Lichfield - and if you cancelled the contracts now and paid the compensation would you really be able to do it cheaper if SNCF did it?

And you’re still in a position where every time a question is asked about whether you do it the expensive way or the cheap way that you go for the cheap way if it’s at least LGV Sud Est standard or whatever.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

So there is the new cost for upgrading the Chilterns then.

To be fair it wouldn’t be that expensive to add a four track section beyond West Ruislip and the tunnel into High Wycombe with a two track section over the M25 - and largely the route was designed originally for four tracking.

I suspect it’s water under the bridge now. But maybe if Boris had had the guts to cancel it in 2019 that would have been a decent option.

 

[AlexSJW]

Not someone of any particular importance; they don't seem to have any credentials or knowledge in respect of railway matters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==


You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not convinced that many - if indeed any - readers of this forum would share this opinion.

All due respect many here were slaughtered. Some here high-speed obsessives.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You are playing the cost angle. Whatever approach I have suggested it will be infinitely cheaper than continuing to spend one billion per mile on this straight and flat as possible vanity railway. And no it is not a capacity issue, the daisy they keep grasping at.

To be also fair the ultra gold plated Aylesbury OOC “plan” that has a £500m station at OOC for Chiltern only comes to £5bn total and includes electrifying the whole Chiltern line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

It would remove 2tph at best off the fasts, a Birmingham train would still run.

Probably only removing 1tph as otherwise Coventry would have a pretty crap London service.

 

[AlexSJW]

Aylesbury isn’t on the chiltern mainline.

Look the £1bn a mile is clearly absolutely ridiculous and the whole way through costs will need to be controlled.

But fundamentally even at good costs it would probably cost £20bn or something to do London-Lichfield - and if you cancelled the contracts now and paid the compensation would you really be able to do it cheaper if SNCF did it?

And you’re still in a position where every time a question is asked about whether you do it the expensive way or the cheap way that you go for the cheap way if it’s at least LGV Sud Est standard or whatever.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==


To be fair it wouldn’t be that expensive to add a four track section beyond West Ruislip and the tunnel into High Wycombe with a two track section over the M25 - and largely the route was designed originally for four tracking.

I gave Aylesbury as nearest town locator. HS2 and the Chiltern are adjacent around there, and that section is advanced in construction.

I suspect it’s water under the bridge now. But maybe if Boris had had the guts to cancel it in 2019 that would have been a decent option.

Overall it has set British rail advances back. If they upgraded WCML and the Chiltern and they got marketing men in, like Sutherland, to improve the station and train experience, it would have all been done by now. We all suffered.

 

[Darandio]

Overall it has set British rail advances back. If they upgraded WCML and the Chiltern and they got marketing men in, like Sutherland, to improve the station and train experience, it would have all been done by now. We all suffered.

There's now a thread regarding the former and you've been taking part in that too. To use your words you were slaughtered there. Move on.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I gave Aylesbury as nearest town locator. HS2 and the Chiltern are adjacent around there.

HS2 runs broadly parallel to the London-Aylesbury line not the Chiltern mainline. If you were to follow the A41 to Bicester from the HS2 route that would be around 15 miles.

 

[Harpo]

If they upgraded WCML and the Chiltern and they got marketing men in, like Sutherland, to improve the station and train experience, it would have all been done by now.

15 years to upgrade WCML & Chiltern? Possible. Both at once? Suicidal for West midlands passenger traffic let alone the ‘spine’ freight. Extra capacity at the end? No. Pretty stations and trains? No - Probably descoped value engineered out by DaFT early doors.

Otherwise, i’ve no idea what a random marketing person with a lifetime’s supply of hindsight pills brings to the party except a few YouTube clips being heavily promoted here because they fit a particular viewpoint.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Pretty stations

Pretty much every station on the network outside city centre ones is utilitarian. It’s only in modern times we have decided to make them prettier, it’s a waste of money.

I am not sure it’s different in other countries.

 

[Harpo]

Pretty much every station on the network outside city centre ones is utilitarian. It’s only in modern times we have decided to make them prettier,

Agreed. I doubt future generations will cherish much of their railway inheritance from recent years.

it’s a waste of money.

Not sure. I’d like to hear a psychologist's view on how our built environment influences behaviours.

 

[yorksrob]

HS2 is a bit like every DIY project I've ever attempted.

Half way through, I probably wouldn't have started. However once started, it's generally worth finishing.

There's absolutely no point in abandoning the section to Birmingham. Finish it and press on to Manchester with a more conventional TGV style high speed line to enable there and Liverpool to have an uplift in services as well. This would avoid the ludicrous current compromise which would apparently see a fall in WCML capacity.

 

[Falcon1200]

BTW, the existing network gives all the capacity needed.

Nonsense

It was all about speed.

More nonsense

HS2 is clearly cancelled.

Even more nonsense

One of the criticisms of Lord Berkeley was that no serious study was undertaken to upgrade the existing network.

Presumably Lord Berkeley, and you, are unaware of the West Coast Route Modernisation project, which cost many millions, caused huge disruption (both planned and unplanned), and still left us with a 125mph railway with insufficient capacity. There are certainly questions to be asked about the planning and execution of the entire HS2 scheme, but to propose, now, that it should be abandoned is, again, nonsense.

 

[MatthewHutton]

More nonsense

If it wasn’t built for speed why exactly did it have a top speed above 320km/h and no stops?

Agree largely with the other points.

 

[Falcon1200]

If it wasn’t built for speed why exactly did it have a top speed above 320km/h and no stops?

If building a new railway from scratch why would it not be specified for a higher speed? And its purpose is to remove longer-distance trains, with fewer or no stops, from the existing route to release capacity there.

 

[MatthewHutton]

If building a new railway from scratch why would it not be specified for a higher speed? And its purpose is to remove longer-distance trains, with fewer or no stops, from the existing route to release capacity there.

Why would you do higher speeds than other high speed lines in larger countries when that was always going to drive up costs due to the lack of standardisation?

And yes more stops because that’s standard practice elsewhere and if it’s for capacity not speed then being slightly slower isn’t important - plus stops reduce your opposition.

 

[Polarbear]

My understanding is that higher top speed specification was rooted from early consultations with SNCF. When the original Paris - Lyon LGV was built, the top speed was originally set at 270kph. Whilst that route has subsequently been upgraded as demand increased, it wasn't possible to upgrade all of the line to 300kph. To avoid HS2 falling into a similar position, I think a decision was taken at an early stage to scope HS2 construction to a much higher specification that was strictly necessary.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and maybe we wouldn't be in the current situation had the original plans not been quite so "gold plated". But we are where we are & have to make the best of things as they stand.

 

[pr1]

I don't agree with @AlexSJW that HS2 is cancelled. My view is that it's probably now better defined that it ever was, having been launched with barely any real justification or identity beyond "It's a High Speed railway" all those years ago.

Cancellation would offer two options: tearing everything down at a cost of b/m/illions, or leaving everything up as monuments to failure. Not sure which would be the more embarrassing.

 

[MatthewHutton]

My understanding is that higher top speed specification was rooted from early consultations with SNCF. When the original Paris - Lyon LGV was built, the top speed was originally set at 270kph. Whilst that route has subsequently been upgraded as demand increased, it wasn't possible to upgrade all of the line to 300kph. To avoid HS2 falling into a similar position, I think a decision was taken at an early stage to scope HS2 construction to a much higher specification that was strictly necessary.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and maybe we wouldn't be in the current situation had the original plans not been quite so "gold plated". But we are where we are & have to make the best of things as they stand.

Paris-Lyon still averages 150mph which in terms of capital-second city is behind only Madrid-Barcelona (155mph) and Beijing-Shanghai (180mph I believe).

So I am not sure the decision ever really made any sense.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why would you do higher speeds than other high speed lines in larger countries when that was always going to drive up costs due to the lack of standardisation?

I do agree that the original planned speed was excessive, no doubt contributed to the cost, and has sensibly been reduced, however it will still, rightly, be far higher than the existing route does, or ever could, provide.

And yes more stops because that’s standard practice elsewhere

No, because capacity for stopping trains is not the purpose of HS2.

 

[Krokodil]

It’s only in modern times we have decided to make them prettier,

Really? Surely all of the prettiest stations we have date back to before WWI. It was BR who demolished their buildings and canopies, turning them into the windswept platforms with draughty shelters we know today.

 

[MatthewHutton]

No, because capacity for stopping trains is not the purpose of HS2.

Even if you triple current ridership the trains are still only going to be less than half full on average.

however it will still, rightly, be far higher than the existing route does, or ever could, provide.

Why?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==

Really? Surely all of the prettiest stations we have date back to before WWI. It was BR who demolished their buildings and canopies, turning them into the windswept platforms with draughty shelters we know today.

Most pre-WWI stations have standard designs.

 

[Krokodil]

Paris-Lyon still averages 150mph which in terms of capital-second city is behind only Madrid-Barcelona (155mph) and Beijing-Shanghai (180mph I believe).

So I am not sure the decision ever really made any sense.

Would a 320kph alignment have been any cheaper than a 360kph one?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Would a 320kph alignment have been any cheaper than a 360kph one?

Yes. Because building 320km/h high speed lines is standard whereas 360km/h or 400km/h is bespoke.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why?

Can the existing WCML really be improved to the point that 186mph would be possible? I would be interested to know how that could be done!

 

[styles]

I wouldn't give Rory Sutherland much airtime to be honest - he's popular on social media because he poses quirky anecdotes about Red Bull tasting bad being intentional, and opening coffee shops at railway stations which only serve flat whites being the way forwards. He's good for a 'shower thoughts' style YouTube Short, but he's not an economist or a rail expert.

Edit: I've watched the video and he's talking about marketing the existing WCML services instead of building HS2, which ignores the fact that HS2 is needed precisely because the existing WCML is so congestion - it doesn't need extra marketing, because it's already really popular.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Can the existing WCML really be improved to the point that 186mph would be possible? I would be interested to know how that could be done!

The one that could probably go quicker is the great western mainline. What you could get out of it I don’t know.

I suspect you couldn’t go much faster on the WCML - and no one is arguing that doing 300/320km/h on a new alignment isn’t worthwhile. But it’s difficult to justify going quicker.

 

[Krokodil]

Even if you triple current ridership the trains are still only going to be less than half full on average.

If Elon Musk walks into a pub, the average patron suddenly becomes a multi-billionaire. Trains at unsocial times of day will be quiet, yes. They always were. There will however be far more capacity for people when they actually want to travel. Therefore fares will be able to drop to sensible levels.

Most pre-WWI stations have standard designs.

They often included decorative brickwork and ironwork that served no practical purpose.

 

[MatthewHutton]

If Elon Musk walks into a pub, the average patron suddenly becomes a multi-billionaire. Trains at unsocial times of day will be quiet, yes. They always were. There will however be far more capacity for people when they actually want to travel. Therefore fares will be able to drop to sensible levels.

Intercity demand is pretty flat all day.

They often included decorative brickwork and ironwork that served no practical purpose

I suspect that didn’t increase costs much though.