Rory Sutherland's view: HS2 should be abandoned

[Krokodil]

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

I didn't say anything about the signalling, the p-way, the OLE or the trains. Just the alignment. There's nothing innovative about building track quite straight, the question was specifically whether building a straighter alignment than the minimum permitted for 320kph actually cost any more?

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

Intercity demand is pretty flat all day.

So why does Avanti charge peak fares at an astronomic mark-up?

I suspect that didn’t increase costs much though.

It cost greater than zero though. It's not "utilitarian".

 

[MatthewHutton]

There's nothing innovative about building track quite straight, the question was specifically whether building a straighter alignment than the minimum permitted for 320kph actually cost any more?

Yes because you have bigger viaducts, bigger earthworks.

Plus it’s harder to avoid obstacles - so e.g more ancient woodland has been lost than would otherwise be the case. At 320km/h you could be further away from Wendover and Aylesbury for example as well - which would save money.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Here's another "scrap it" view from Simon Jenkins of the Guardian.
He's been a fierce opponent of HS2 from the beginning, but does know his railways having at one time been on the BR Board, and specialises in railway architecture.

HS2 is the wildest white elephant in British history. Please put it out of its misery | Simon Jenkins

The government is in thrall to the sunk-cost fallacy. Scrap the project, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

So it is official, as if that makes a difference. After a 15-month review by the new chief executive, the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, has revealed that HS2 will now cost up to £102.7bn and trains may not start until 2039. Alexander called the original design a “massively over-specced folly” and called the increase in time and costs “obscene”. Indeed it possibly ranks as the wildest white elephant in British history. In comparison, Donald Trump’s White House ballroom is a garden shed, and Dubai’s Burj Khalifa a mere sandcastle.

This week, Alexander, the ninth transport secretary since HS2 was proposed, admitted the project made her angry. As she dusted off her department’s latest defence of its appalling conduct of this fiasco, she tried to feign surprise. She has been in office 18 months. Don’t tell us she did not know.

We thus got the usual promise of a clear-out, of a new page turned and a talented new management team bringing the project at last under control. Alexander should not have recited this familiar speech to the Commons. She should make it in public outside every hospital in the land, every one that has spent the past decade unmodernised, every school unrepaired, every care home unbuilt and every prison overcrowded.

The HS2 project remains what it always was, a total dud. It is a superfluous railway that has simply run wild. There are plenty of fast trains to Birmingham and other ways of running more. This was always a vanity project of the David Cameron coalition. As the former Downing Street in-house HS2 expert, Andrew Gilligan, admitted to the Sunday Times 18 months ago, “HS2 was certain to fail from the start”, with the wrong route, wrong speed and wrong termini. It was ludicrous not to link up with HS1.

 

[MatthewHutton]

So why does Avanti charge peak fares at an astronomic mark-up?

I don’t think most of the people living in the countryside care that much about peak service. So if the compromise was more stops but weak peak service that is certainly workable. And you could also try and offer one train in the peak hour to London as an extra that would be expected to be full and standing.

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

It cost greater than zero though. It's not "utilitarian".

Fair. But I think some of the modern stations have pretty large markups.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

It literally is. The whole point of it is to get IC trains off the south WCML so more local trains and freight can run, in particular serving the growth of Milton Keynes which will top a million in the next century (and yes you're building stuff like HS2 for that sort of timeline).

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

Here's another "scrap it" view from Simon Jenkins of the Guardian.
He's been a fierce opponent of HS2 from the beginning, but does know his railways having at one time been on the BR Board, and specialises in railway architecture.

HS2 is the wildest white elephant in British history. Please put it out of its misery | Simon Jenkins

The government is in thrall to the sunk-cost fallacy. Scrap the project, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

Pushing linking up with HS1 is nuts. There is just not the demand. If there was, Regional Eurostar would have succeeded.

As to canning it now, if the cost of canning it (and returning everything to nature) would be the same as or similar to the cost of finishing it, as is suggested, it might as well be finished even if all it ever does in my lifetime is run an Aston-Acton shuttle (and in doing so e.g. allow Chiltern to be refocused on commuter type services as its budget role would be replaced, and similarly allowing the present "2 fast, 1 semi and 2 slow" structure on the WCML to be replaced by something like a 6tph integrated 110mph service which would be better for serving growing MK and gain at least some of the benefits).

 

[mmh]

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

Also a higher speed train will cost more to buy and to operate.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Also a higher speed train will cost more to buy and to operate.

And more noise from the pantograph so bigger noise barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also a higher speed train will cost more to buy and to operate.

If the stock order hadn't been signed that would be true, but as it is we're getting the 400km/h capable units whatever. Why it's so hard to change it goodness knows, WMT for instance changed the 730 order when they were already being built - indeed a couple of 3+2 layout sets were actually built and were converted to 2+2. Yes, that's only seats, but none of the HS2 stock has even been started yet!

 

[Harpo]

And more noise from the pantograph so bigger noise barriers.

Pantograph noise? My hearing may be a bit dodgy but in half a century of rail interest I don’t think I’ve ever noticed any.

 

[MatthewHutton]

If the stock order hadn't been signed that would be true, but as it is we're getting the 400km/h capable units whatever. Why it's so hard to change it goodness knows, WMT for instance changed the 730 order when they were already being built.

I am not sure our transport secretary is very good.

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

Pantograph noise? My hearing may be a bit dodgy but in half a century of rail interest I don’t think I’ve ever noticed any.

It’s the key noise driver at 300km/h and above. The Japanese designed a better pantograph that’s quieter but you can’t use it off the high speed lines.

Don’t forget it’s much higher than the track.

See e.g https://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/jrtr22/pdf/F48_Technology.pdf

This is HS2s research where they apparently missed Japan - https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J020_2019_IWRN13_Sica_et-al..pdf

 

[SuspectUsual]

So why does Avanti charge peak fares at an astronomic mark-up?

Depending on how you look at it, either to take advantage of those who don't have flexible travel times, or because the flattened demand is the outcome of the charging of peak time fares, ie moving time-flexible travel to previously quieter times of the day

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depending on how you look at it, either to take advantage of those who don't have flexible travel times, or because the flattened demand is the outcome of the charging of peak time fares, ie moving time-flexible travel to previously quieter times of the day

It would be a mix of those, but these days primarily the latter, i.e. charging what you can get away with charging (which is what most businesses do in some form).

 

[devon_belle]

Sutherland is just a soundbite machine. He's the same guy who said that instead of building HS1 they should have intead invested in hiring supermodels as on-board staff:

Why is it necessary to spend six billion pounds speeding up the Eurostar train when, for about 10 percent of that money, you could have top supermodels, male and female, serving free Château Petrus to all the passengers for the entire duration of the journey? You’d still have five billion left in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.

While I find a lot of what he says amusing, I don't regard his comments as anything more than what they are – flippant remarks aimed at farming engagement (which is working here!). As a marketing guy he is probably coming at HS2 from the terrible PR viewpoint, rather than trying to think about the problem it's actually trying to solve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I find a lot of what he says amusing, I don't regard his comments as anything more than what they are – flippant remarks aimed at farming engagement (which is working here!). As a marketing guy he is probably coming at HS2 from the terrible PR viewpoint, rather than trying to think about the problem it's actually trying to solve.

Most HS2 critics don't understand what it's actually for (relieving the south WCML). There are other options to do that (see the thread on spending money on the WCML) but doing nothing would just leave the WCML in its present unreliable state. Though even the railway often doesn't understand why slack in capacity is a good thing for reliability given that HS2 was originally specced with no spare paths...

I wonder if people would have understood better if it had been called the Milton Keynes Bypass or something...they understand that in a road context and what it does (makes through journeys better AND improves local journeys by removing the through traffic).

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Hahaha.... Because the last attempt at upgrading the WCML went so well....

You seem to believe that the only valid opinions are yours and those who support you.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I wonder if people would have understood better if it had been called the Milton Keynes Bypass or something...they understand that in a road context and what it does (makes through journeys better AND improves local journeys by removing the through traffic).

Yeah but I think then it needed to be a bit closer to Milton Keynes!

 

[Polarbear]

Here's another "scrap it" view from Simon Jenkins of the Guardian.
He's been a fierce opponent of HS2 from the beginning, but does know his railways having at one time been on the BR Board, and specialises in railway architecture.

HS2 is the wildest white elephant in British history. Please put it out of its misery | Simon Jenkins

The government is in thrall to the sunk-cost fallacy. Scrap the project, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

Jenkins has form for this sort of commentary. Despite being told on numerous occasions about the need for capacity, he blithly ignores that aspect, focusing his ire around the soundbite of "we already have two lines between London & Birmingham". He may have been on the BR board, but his sheer ignorance of the facts is astounding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah but I think then it needed to be a bit closer to Milton Keynes!

It also bypasses Watford, Rugby and Coventry but that would be a mouthful

 

[SuspectUsual]

As a marketing guy he is probably coming at HS2 from the terrible PR viewpoint, rather than trying to think about the problem it's actually trying to solve.

He is coming at it from the viewpoint of "how can I make it about me and how can I monetise it"

Good luck to him with anyone daft enough to click on his stuff

 

[Severnia333]

It literally is. The whole point of it is to get IC trains off the south WCML so more local trains and freight can run, in particular serving the growth of Milton Keynes which will top a million in the next century (and yes you're building stuff like HS2 for that sort of timeline).

I know it is growing, but I am skeptical of that figure (and similar ones for Cambridge). We have low ish birth rates, and ageing population and a political consensus moving away from large scale immigration. Compared to most of Europe, we also lack large scale rural depopulation, which suggests our cities have less pull for internal migration.

I could see MK at 400-500k by 2100, similar for Cambridge. Exeter is also growing very quickly, maybe 200k plus in the same period. Happy to be convinced otherwise. You're absolutely right regarding the timescales we need to be thinking on regarding big infrastructure projects.

 

[JamesT]

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

How many times do we have to do this? The most recent French lines have been built to 400kph, it’s not exceptional. They may not be using that speed yet, but you only get to choose your alignment once.

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

Jenkins has form for this sort of commentary. Despite being told on numerous occasions about the need for capacity, he blithly ignores that aspect, focusing his ire around the soundbite of "we already have two lines between London & Birmingham". He may have been on the BR board, but his sheer ignorance of the facts is astounding.

Yes, he’s a contrarian. It’s usually a good move to see what Jenkins thinks, then you know the opposite is correct.

 

[MatthewHutton]

How many times do we have to do this? The most recent French lines have been built to 400kph, it’s not exceptional. They may not be using that speed yet, but you only get to choose your alignment once

France is also bigger and has a much lower rural population. Is e.g the Kyushu Shinkansens alignments built for 400km/h?

And even there Nagasaki or Kagoshima to Tokyo is a lot more plausible than going north of Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.

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

Yes, he’s a contrarian. It’s usually a good move to see what Jenkins thinks, then you know the opposite is correct.

Agree.

 

[JamesT]

France is also bigger and has a much lower rural population. Is e.g the Kyushu Shinkansens alignments built for 400km/h?

And even there Nagasaki or Kagoshima to Tokyo is a lot more plausible than going north of Edinburgh and Glasgow to London.

The Shinkansen has a very different model, with frequent stops. LGV Est, the newest bit of line has stations roughly 80-120km apart. Which is similar to the distances between London, Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

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

So that part is done for free then presumably?

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.

So when does lengthening trains stop creating capacity as I asked before. What do you do then? There is no timetable capacity left on the WCML fast lines.

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.

So building HS2.

 

[JonathanH]

It also bypasses Watford, Rugby and Coventry but that would be a mouthful

That is part of the problem because instead of using the current fast line entirely for trains that are currently on the slow lines and having the slow lines free for freight, the problem of having to use the slow line for a mix of freight and stopping trains, and using the fast lines for trains with different calling patterns is perpetuated

 

[The Planner]

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.

Destroying future revenue and ridership as you are closing routes over multiple years.

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.

Didn't the French tell us to not make their mistakes and go faster?

 

[MatthewHutton]

The Shinkansen has a very different model, with frequent stops. LGV Est, the newest bit of line has stations roughly 80-120km apart. Which is similar to the distances between London, Birmingham, Crewe, and Manchester.

Our population density along the route is much closer to Japan than France however.

Didn't the French tell us to not make their mistakes and go faster?

Why would the French say they should have built their lines faster? And why in a smaller country would it make sense either?

And also with e.g LGV Est you might plausibly want to go to Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Bratislava or Budapest. There are no such destinations north of the Scottish central belt and only really Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle north of Leeds.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I have only looked at the beginning of this thread, but I'm slightly depressed with the thought that policy making of the future might be orchestrated through minute-long soundbite video clips which all come subtitled (often badly).

 

[MatthewHutton]

I have only looked at the beginning of this thread, but I'm slightly depressed with the thought that policy making of the future might be orchestrated through minute-long soundbite video clips which all come subtitled (often badly).

You can do stuff properly and make a short video on it. Fundamentally I don’t believe anyone in the public ever really read long policy documents.

 

[Joe Paxton]

You can do stuff properly and make a short video on it. Fundamentally I don’t believe anyone in the public ever really read long policy documents.

Yes you can, and any good idea should be able to be précised in a short and succinct manner.

However ideas need to be discussed and developed in a manner that goes beyond minute-long soundbites! (And yes, I suppose the soundbite clip that the OP started this post with has in turn prompted this longer thread!)