APPENDIX 21
Memorandum submittedby the Rail Freight
Group
INTRODUCTION
1. The Rail Freight Group is the representative
body of the rail freight industry. During the bid process for
the 2012 Olympic Games, we had a number of meetings with the bid
team, as described below. We had useful discussions, and felt
that the bid team generally recognised our concerns, and sought
to mitigate any adverse effects. However, although we received
assurances on some issues, it is likely that there will be a new
team of people, and we will wish to be assured that these concerns
are being properly addressed.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
2. We would wish to ensure that the maximum
amount of construction materials is transported to and from the
Stratford site by rail. This makes excellent transport and environmental
sense, especially in an area of such high road congestion. For
this to be practicable, there have to be suitable terminal sites
for loading and unloading such materials.
TERMINAL SITES
3. Some months ago, when the bid was being
prepared, discussions with the bid team were held on a number
of issues, including the availability of such terminals. There
are currently three sites at Bow, used for construction materials
and other products. We understand that some of these sites may
be required on a permanent basis for the Games and afterwards,
whereas others may be required for use as a car park during the
Games. We argued in favour of retaining some of the sidings, which
provide an important supply of building materials for the City
of London and surrounding areas delivered by rail.
4. We suggested that this could be achieved
by reducing the area of the proposed car park to enable some of
the siding sites to be retained, and suggested that they retain
the desired number of parking places whilst taking less land.
The bid team clearly found this a novel approach, and felt that,
since the sidings were within the boundary of the site, they would
have to be removed. They were further worried about cement dust
on the Royal car which might pass through the car park. We reminded
the bid team that modern concreting equipment is very environmentally
friendly and we understand that the operator offered to suspend
operations during the Games.
5. We urge the Committee to consider the
balance between the need for land for the Games, and the ongoing
needs of the construction industry in that area of London. The
bid team were not able to identify any alternative locations for
such facilities.
SECURITY AND
ITS AFFECT
ON RAIL
FREIGHT.
6. In our preliminary discussions with the
bid team, we were surprised to hear that they proposed to prohibit
freight trains from using the High Meads Curve on the Stratford
site for a two month duration of the Games because the Olympic
Village was to be built over this line, and rail freight was a
"security threat" to the Village. We challenged the
bid team for evidence of this, and asked whether they had consulted
the Metropolitan Police or TRANSEC, the Department for Transport's
Security branch. They admitted that they had not and so, after
some discussion, we received letters from these organisations
stating that, under normal security conditions, there was no need
for such restrictions. This was accepted by the bid team.
RAIL FREIGHT
SERVICES THROUGH
THE STRATFORD
SITE.
7. A large number of freight trains pass
through the Stratford site every day, most operating between the
North London Line and either the Great Eastern Main Line or the
London, Tilbury and Southend lines. Such traffic is likely to
grow significantly in volume if the Thames Gateway and/or Bathside
Bay or Felixstowe South container terminals are built. Early discussions
with the bid team indicated that it was likely that freight trains
could continue to operate normally for most of the time. The only
exceptions were on the North London Line when additional passenger
trains might be run towards Stratford in the mornings and away
from Stratford in the evenings during the Games.
8. Whereas this may well be acceptable to
the rail freight operators and customers, any greater disruption,
for example for the duration of the Games, would have a serious
and adverse effect long term on rail freight business and, as
such, would be unacceptable. In such cases, alternative routes
to the same capability must be provided in advance of the Games.
INDEPENDENT RAIL
REGULATION
9. We are concerned about proposals in the
Olympics Bill to enable the Secretary of State for Transport to
direct the Office of Rail Regulation. Although the clauses in
this Bill are less draconian than those in the Crossrail Bill,
they are still of concern to the industry.
10. We believe that the retention of the
independence of the Office of Rail Regulation is essential to
the ongoing development and private sector investment in the rail
freight industry. This has been confirmed on a number of occasions
by ministers, independent regulation is the cornerstone of the
Government's structure of the railways, as confirmed in the following
Statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on 9 February
2004 (Col1237W): "The independence of economic regulation
has already been clearly set out in my statement of 19 January.
The Government also rules out any change to the rights of third
parties, which will be protected. There is no question of weakening
the effectiveness of economic regulation. The Government recognises
that maintaining fully effective and independent economic regulation
is critical for retaining investor confidence. There will be no
diminution in the regulatory protection of the private sector
investors in the railway."
11. These clauses would permit a considerable
weakening of the principle of independent regulation and, as such,
will seriously reduce the protection of the private sector investors
in the railway, which has been based, over the last ten years,
on independent regulation coupled with due industry processes
that are seen to be both transparent and fair to all the players.
12. We oppose any such weakening but, at
the same time, are confident that the normal industry processes
will enable a reasonable number of additional rail services needed
for the Olympics to be achieved with minimum disruption to other
users of the lines. We will certainly be willing to participate
in any such processes, and we therefore urge the Committee to
recommend that these clauses be removed from the Bill.
CONCLUSION
13. Apart from the concerns about the Bill
referred to above, our other concerns were discussed with the
bid team in outline. Assurances are now required that there are
to be no significant changes which could adversely affect freight.
It would be useful, however, in the absence of satisfactory resolution,
if there were a means of appeal to an independent body. The most
appropriate body to us would be the independent Office of Rail
Regulation, who as already received greater powers and locus for
appeals under the Railways Act 2005 and other recent legislation.
14. We urge the Committee to investigate
the above issues.
8 September 2005
| 
