Gilligan on on HS2 and NPR

[AlexSJW]

Andrew Gilligan on HS2 and NPR. He has a valid point:

As for the problem that HS2 is meant to fix – congestion on the West Coast Main Line – that too could be solved far quicker and cheaper by tackling two pinch-points, Crewe and Colwich, than by building a whole new line. This would also prevent services to other places on the existing route, such as Stoke, Stockport, Wilmslow – and Burnham’s own local station at Wigan – being damaged, sometimes devastated, as trains are switched to HS2.

Burnham’s HS2 promise is dead on arrival – here’s how to really fix Britain’s railways

From new 'Elizabeth Lines' to tackling pinch points, experts offer their alternatives to the cash-devouring scheme

inews.co.uk

 

[eldomtom2]

How would HS2 damage Wigan services when even the full original plan with the Golborne link rejoins the WCML before reaching Wigan?

 

[The Planner]

Andrew Gilligan on HS2 and NPR. He has a valid point:

Burnham’s HS2 promise is dead on arrival – here’s how to really fix Britain’s railways

From new 'Elizabeth Lines' to tackling pinch points, experts offer their alternatives to the cash-devouring scheme

inews.co.uk

How does that release capacity?

 

[quantinghome]

Quite funny to see him quoting Gareth Dennis given Gareth has been one of his sternest critics.

 

[FMerrymon]

Andrew Gilligan is not a transport expert and has a history of misleading the public on hs2.

 

[Energy]

Andrew Gilligan is not a transport expert

Indeed, his background is firmly in journalism, including working under Boris Johnson at The Spectator. When Boris became Mayor of London, he was appointed as Cycling Commissioner, with allegations of cronyism at the time. He was appointed as a transport advisor under Boris and later under Sunak, where he advocated for the cancellation of HS2 Phase 2.

OP has cited Gilligan before in the Restarting HS2a thread. I think this post, from that thread, by @Grimsby town is a good description...

Why was Andrew Gilligan a transport advisor though? Basically because he was mates with Boris Johnson. Before he became a cycling advisor to Johnson, he'd never worked in transport and had no academic transport qualifications. He has very little understanding of rail operations and I'd confidently say I am more qualified to advise a government on transport than he is, which is incredibly worrying.

I've read his reports. They can't be taken seriously because reports like that require the input of experts from many different fields and can't be accurately written by one egotistical person. Even ignoring the lack of expertise, the content is largely rubbish. Talk of running 60 trains per hour through a tunnel in Manchester is one line that shows how crazy it is. Gilligan isn't been taken seriously by anybody in the current government and he definitely shouldn't be.

 

[quantinghome]

Even ignoring the lack of expertise, the content is largely rubbish. Talk of running 60 trains per hour through a tunnel in Manchester is one line that shows how crazy it is. Gilligan isn't been taken seriously by anybody in the current government and he definitely shouldn't be.

Even a viable proposal for a tunnel through Manchester would be at risk of suffering the same delays and cost blowup seen on HS2 - there's a number of similar schemes past and present which have been done in European cities which have had major problems. "We need to replicate what they're doing in Stuttgart to avoid project failure" is quite a take.

 

[FMerrymon]

Even a viable proposal for a tunnel through Manchester would be at risk of suffering the same delays and cost blowup seen on HS2 - there's a number of similar schemes past and present which have been done in European cities which have had major problems. "We need to replicate what they're doing in Stuttgart to avoid project failure" is quite a take.

Exactly. Munich is having trouble with cost and delivery on their new s-bahn trunk line 2 as well. Expected to be about 12 years late and what appears to be a similar increase in cost to HS2.

 

[The Mercian]

Is anyone taking seriously someone quoting Andrew Gilligan as an expert. Laughable.

 

[Bald Rick]

He has a valid point:

He doesn’t, but then opinions differ.

Also, he will probably be reading this.

 

[Harpo]

Is anyone taking seriously someone quoting Andrew Gilligan as an expert. Laughable.

I’ll not defend Mr Gilligan but our decision makers for HS2 have hardly been ‘expert’ either.

 

[quantinghome]

I’ll not defend Mr Gilligan but our decision makers for HS2 have hardly been ‘expert’ either.

HS2's problems have been mostly to do with execution, whereas Gilligan is critical of HS2 as a concept.

 

[Harpo]

HS2's problems have been mostly to do with execution, whereas Gilligan is critical of HS2 as a concept.

HS2s current problems are as much to do with cancellations as execution. As for concept, the scope has probably never been static for long enough for any concept to properly evaluated.

 

[quantinghome]

HS2s current problems are as much to do with cancellations as execution. As for concept, the scope has probably never been static for long enough for any concept to properly evaluated.

I'm treating "concept" in a very high level way - that we need a new backbone line to join up major cities that goes right into the city centres so we get the full benefit of additional capacity, not just higher speeds through open country.

The cancellation of parts of the scheme was essentially part of execution. They wouldn't have been cancelled had HS2 been able to keep to a budget. There was no change in overall concept, just a reduction in the scope of its application.

Gilligan's beef isn't merely that HS2 has been badly managed or poor decisions made about the details - it's that he fundamentally doesn't see the need for a new line and is still wedded to the idea that we can continue to expand capacity by upgrading existing routes.

 

[Harpo]

The cancellation of parts of the scheme was essentially part of execution.

What? A scheme is not designed with cancellation as something to be executed. The cancellations were largely political. Which other nation has a leader celebrating cancellation of national infrastructure with party faithfuls?

They wouldn't have been cancelled had HS2 been able to keep to a budget.

The budget was a symptom. The cause was political interference and scope creep such as design speed, NIMBY tunnels etc..

There was no change in overall concept, just a reduction in the scope of its application.

At some point in early design, the schemes linespeed was seriously inflated and over-engineering crept in as risk transfer was sought. That is massive conceptual change. Similarly, as above, an above ground route was forced to become a sub-surface route over long sections. Even now, the operational concept for through running to the conventional network is in flux.

 

[quantinghome]

What? A scheme is not designed with cancellation as something to be executed. The cancellations were largely political. Which other nation has a leader celebrating cancellation of national infrastructure with party faithfuls?

Perhaps I should have been clearer - the cancellations were a result of the failures of execution. Obviously it wasn't designed with cancellation in mind.

The budget was a symptom. The cause was political interference and scope creep such as design speed, NIMBY tunnels etc..

Political interference started to happen on a major scale several years into the project. As you rightly say, most of the budget-busting decisions had been made early in the project and it was only later that politicians began to view it as a "project in trouble" and started ordering reviews.

Ultimately no one in HS2 was truly driving the project forward. There was no Rob Holden who had done this role for HS1. And that is the fault of politicians for not making sure the right person was appointed to the role. Had politicians intervened earlier (say in 2012-2013) to resolve the emerging problems with the lack of leadership, poor organisational structure and accountability deficit, we would have seen much less destructive interference later on.

At some point in early design, the schemes linespeed was seriously inflated and over-engineering crept in as risk transfer was sought. That is massive conceptual change. Similarly, as above, an above ground route was forced to become a sub-surface route over long sections. Even now, the operational concept for through running to the conventional network is in flux.

I disagree that it was a massive conceptual change. Linespeed, tunnelling extent and over-engineering are questions of implementation, not overall concept. It was still doing what it was originally intended to do. For example, the additional tunnels didn't fundamentally change the concept - they added perhaps 10-20% onto the already substantial lengths of tunnel required in the urban areas and through the Chilterns.

 

[SynthD]

I’ll not defend Mr Gilligan but our decision makers for HS2 have hardly been ‘expert’ either.

Once the mislaid blame for others has been taken out of the equation, what’s left is hindsight.

At some point in early design, the schemes linespeed was seriously inflated

What was it before the inflation?

 

[cle]

I'm not sure what solving Crewe specifically is (a fast underpass / underground station? shifting platforms to the west?) - but fixing Colwich and how HS2 rejoins at Handsacre is certainly a future risk. And same capacity north of there, by and large.

So while I am no fan, it's a 'yes and' - as people now like to say - where these things are true (extra capacity and untangling pinch points is always a good thing) - but they do not solve for what a self-contained / protected HS2 route to Manchester would have done.

 

[AlexSJW]

Gilligan told Johnson to drop HS2, but after much consideration BoJo went ahead. He authored a Policy Exchange document on NPR and HS2, in which he proposed a northern east-west walk up Elizabeth Line, which is an amazing success. His document hit all thee top media outlets with many at the DfT and government taking note. Link to download the doc is here:

Instead of high-speed rail - Policy Exchange

Download Publication Online Reader The Government says it will soon “set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail,” NPR, a new high-speed scheme from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds. It has recently been briefed to journalists – and not denied – that ministers will commit...

policyexchange.org.uk

The Government says it will soon “set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail,” NPR, a new high-speed scheme from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds. It has recently been briefed to journalists – and not denied – that ministers will commit to this scheme, or at least the Liverpool-Manchester section of it, at or before this month’s Labour Party conference.

But NPR is a project which achieves the difficult feat of making HS2 look sensible. The journey on it from Liverpool to Manchester, for instance, would actually take longer than on the existing service. This report – with a Foreword by the Deputy Leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice MP – sets out a series of alternative schemes which would deliver more, to more people, in more places, more quickly.

In the Policy Exchange document Gilligan proposed upgrading Colwich for HS2 trains knowing HS2 to Handsacre is going ahead, with many on Social media telling him a Stafford bypass is the ideal way, and that is he treating the North as second rate. He appears to have listened taking up the bypass along with sorting the pinch point at Crewe. Whether he prefers Manchester trains to go via Crewe rather than the shorter route via Stone and Stoke is not clear - taking Manchester trains via Stone and Stoke keeps them off the WCML entirely improving capacity. A short bypass tunnel under Crewe is the real answer, and also making the WCML 4-track from Crewe to Warrington/Wigan.

 

[FMerrymon]

Gilligan told Johnson to drop HS2, but after much consideration BoJo went ahead. He authored a Policy Exchange document on NPR and HS2, in which he proposed a northern east-west walk up Elizabeth Line, which is an amazing success. His document hit all thee top media outlets with many at the DfT and government taking note. Link to download the doc is here:

Instead of high-speed rail - Policy Exchange

Download Publication Online Reader The Government says it will soon “set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail,” NPR, a new high-speed scheme from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds. It has recently been briefed to journalists – and not denied – that ministers will commit...

policyexchange.org.uk

In the Policy Exchange document Gilligan proposed upgrading Colwich for HS2 trains knowing HS2 to Handsacre is going ahead, with many on Social media telling him a Stafford bypass is the ideal way, and that is he treating the North as second rate. He appears to have listened taking up the bypass along with sorting the pinch point at Crewe. Whether he prefers Manchester trains to go via Crewe rather than the shorter route via Stone and Stoke is not clear - taking Manchester trains via Stone and Stoke keeps them off the WCML entirely improving capacity. A short bypass tunnel under Crewe is the real answer, and also making the WCML 4-track from Crewe to Warrington/Wigan.

The "proposal" from Gilligan comes from Trevor Parkin of the Stone Railhead Crisis Group. He is not an expert either, but, more importantly, doesn't want phase 2a (which one could refer to as the Stafford bypass) to proceed, for the one and only reason that he lives near it. It's not serious analysis.

 

[AlexSJW]

For balance. Living near is not the one and only reason for Parkin opposing the 2a scheme. Unless he has explicitly said that himself, it isn't something that can be established as fact. This should not detract from Gilligan's document.

Stone Railhead Crisis Group, as their name states, oppose the Stone railhead location proposing relocating the railhead and maintenance base to an alternative site. They support the principle of high-speed rail,

 

[FMerrymon]

Stone Railhead Crisis Group, as their name states, oppose the Stone railhead location proposing relocating the railhead and maintenance base to an alternative site

Yes, an alternative site not near them.

 

[Energy]

Gilligan told Johnson to drop HS2, but after much consideration BoJo went ahead. He authored a Policy Exchange document on NPR and HS2, in which he proposed a northern east-west walk up Elizabeth Line, which is an amazing success. His document hit all thee top media outlets with many at the DfT and government taking note. Link to download the doc is here:

Instead of high-speed rail - Policy Exchange

Download Publication Online Reader The Government says it will soon “set out further details on our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail,” NPR, a new high-speed scheme from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds. It has recently been briefed to journalists – and not denied – that ministers will commit...

policyexchange.org.uk

In the Policy Exchange document Gilligan proposed upgrading Colwich for HS2 trains knowing HS2 to Handsacre is going ahead, with many on Social media telling him a Stafford bypass is the ideal way, and that is he treating the North as second rate. He appears to have listened taking up the bypass along with sorting the pinch point at Crewe. Whether he prefers Manchester trains to go via Crewe rather than the shorter route via Stone and Stoke is not clear - taking Manchester trains via Stone and Stoke keeps them off the WCML entirely improving capacity. A short bypass tunnel under Crewe is the real answer, and also making the WCML 4-track from Crewe to Warrington/Wigan.

We've done this before on a previous thread...

The document was published by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and featured a foreword by Reform MP Richard Tice. While the document has some good points, it's far from apolitical.

As far as transport experts, he cites Ian Wray. I'd recommend reading the paper he co-wrote that supports HS2 2a.

This part of HS2 – a limited second stage (“Phase 2a”) – has a sound business case, Parliamentary Powers and much of the land needed for this connection across Staffordshire has already been obtained. Its aim is to create transport network capacity. It is in effect a project ready to go, held back now for over two years.

 

[FMerrymon]

with many at the DfT and government taking note

Source for this?

 

[Tezza1978]

Cannot take anything Gilligan says on HS2 as "analysis". Mainly because he has been fundamentally against it from the start and the arguments he puts against it, are - for want of a better word - equivalent to bovine excrement.