Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8340
- 8359)
8340. What do we find at page 15?[22]
(Mr Hardie) Page 15 is a copy
of a parliamentary written answer on 16 February this year in
which Derek Twigg confirms the reason given, that it is the sharing
of tracks with other rail services that would give the unacceptable
risk of disruption to Crossrail's planned high-frequency service
pattern.
8341. At page 16 we have another extract from
the Information Paper.[23]
What is highlighted in red on page 16 is set out on page 17, and
it is the same reason given.
(Mr Hardie) Yes. It emphasises
the reliability being the factor.
8342. That is the problem. If you turn on to
page 18, is there a solution?[24]
(Mr Hardie) This is a letter from
Edmund Cullen of the Department for Transport to Dartford Borough
Council dated 19 July last year. It rather more localises the
problem. Rather than talking in general terms about service unreliability,
it is more specific about mentioning the capacity bottleneck between
Slade Green and Dartford. That is focusing attention on where
the problem is within the wider network.
8343. You have highlighted that at 19. You have
then produced a letter to Richard Hawkins of Bexley Council. Is
there a particular passage in this letter that you want to highlight?
(Mr Hardie) The particular pieces I have highlighted
there run over two slides.[25]
There are two boxes highlighted in red and two boxes highlighted
in green. I was there satisfying myself that the claims about
the unreliability were in fact valid. The boxes in red set out
the service pattern in and around the junctions to the west of
Dartford and up the North Kent Line towards Slade Green. The green
boxes then have effectively the same service pattern but with
Crossrail trains introduced into the mix. I should emphasise that
this is a letter provided by CLRL in answer to questions we put
to them, so this is their expression of the service pattern.
8344. If we go on to page 23, you have there
diagrammatically identified the critical junctions.[26]
(Mr Hardie) Yes. I have identified
the critical junctions, but, as you can see, to the north of it
there is yet another triangular junction which adds to the extent
to which services converge and conflict with each other.
8345. What does page 24 show?[27]
(Mr Hardie) I have taken the information
that was contained in the red and green boxes in CLRL's letter.
Homing in on just the Dartford Junction triangle, I have put on
the number of train movements. It is a little bit hard to follow,
but I have effectively tried to show the number of trains which
are going along each line and from that one can get a feel for
the extent to which there are conflicting movements.
8346. Peak hour train movements with Crossrail
are the figures not in brackets.
(Mr Hardie) That is right.
8347. And without Crossrail they are the figures
in brackets.
(Mr Hardie) Yes.
8348. We have already looked at page 25 on page
18. You then highlight a part from an element in CLRL's letter.
If we go to page 27, we can see the part you wish to draw to the
Committee's attention.[28]
(Mr Hardie) This letter is saying
that there is a solution to the unreliability, which would be
to provide four tracks from Crayford Creek Junction to Dartford
Station, and that by allowing independent operation for Crossrail
trains there would be a reduction in the conflicts and convergence
on the line and hence a reduction in unreliability.
8349. So the problem is identified but a solution
is available, if I have correctly understood it.
(Mr Hardie) That is right, yes.
8350. If we go to page 28, that is an extract
from Information Paper A5 again.[29]
What is the Promoter saying?
(Mr Hardie) The Promoter is effectively
making the same point again that it is segregation of the services
which would lead to a reduction in conflicting train movements
and hence promoting reliability.
8351. On the next page, page 29, is an extract
from Information Paper C5.[30]
(Mr Hardie) C5 takes us on a little
step further and confirms again that it is the Slade Green to
Dartford section that is really the problem and that four tracking
through that section would provide the solution.
8352. It is the first sentence.
(Mr Hardie) Yes.
8353. "CLRL have advised that in order
to achieve a reliable service, four-tracking of the line would
be required between Slade Green and Dartford." Then we have
the revised safeguarding plans on page 30.[31]
(Mr Hardie) Yes. I am afraid they
are not the clearest plans, but I hope they convey the message
that in terms of revised safeguarding arrangements there would
be enough space identified in order to provide the four-tracking
solution which the Promoter has put forward.
8354. Sir Peter Soulsby: Could you tell
us quite what we are looking at on page 30. I have to say I am
a bit stumped.
(Mr Hardie) I must apologise. I was trying
to condense some very large drawings on to a slide and I do have
a hard copy if it would help. In terms of top to bottom, the drawings
are running west to east. The one in the middle would appear to
the right of the one at the top and we have here the section of
line just north and west of Slade Green depot. The plan would
be to segregate a pair of tracks adjacent to Slade Green depot
and then continue east. You are now into the middle drawing and
you can see that the red dotted lines have been drawn wide enough
so that additional tracks could be provided in that space. Towards
the right-hand end of the middle drawing, probably halfway along
to the end, you have the top side of Dartford junction itself.
Continuing on to the right, that then appears at the left-hand
end of the third drawing, and that is showing the right-hand end
of the Dartford junction triangle. As you can see, the limits
have been drawn wide enough in order to provide additional tracks
such that segregated traffic could be provided up to Dartford
Station.
8355. Mr Cameron: These plans are produced,
am I right in understanding, by the Secretary of State as part
of a draft safeguarding direction to safeguard that land so that
any future proposal coming forward to provide four tracks is not
impeded by any development in the meantime. Is that right?
(Mr Hardie) That is my understanding, yes.
8356. On page 31 I think you have got a schematic
diagram which shows where the four-track section would be included.[32]
(Mr Hardie) That is right. The
maroon line that I have drawn there—and I emphasise this
is schematic—is the degree of separation. Geographically,
it would be nothing like that; this was merely to give you a sort
of pictorial—
8357. Sir Peter Soulsby: Just so we can
understand the context of this, can you give us an indication
of the distances between the junction here?
(Mr Hardie) I think it is about 3 to 3.5 kilometres.
8358. Mr Cameron: Having looked at the
problem identified by the Promoter and the solution identified,
in fact, by the Promoter, I think we now move to the business
appraisal. Is that right?
(Mr Hardie) That is right, yes.
8359. Page 32.[33]
Where does this come from and what does it show the Committee?
(Mr Hardie) This is an extract
from the Crossrail Review published in July 2004, probably better
known as the Montague Report. That was the only source I could
find that would give you the incremental valuation of going from
Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. Hence, I picked on Options 2 and 3 which
are the only ones that allow that comparison to be made.
22 Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating
at Abbey Wood (4) Hansard, Column 2409W, 16 February 2006 (BEXYLB-32005A-015) Back
23
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating at Abbey Wood
(5) Crossrail Information Paper A5 Additional Safeguarding (BEXYLB-32005A-016). Back
24
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating at Abbey Wood
(7) Letter from DfT to Dartford Borough Council, 19 July 2005
(BEXYLB-32005A-018). Back
25
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Reasons for Terminating at Abbey Wood
(9 and 10) CLRL letter to Bexley Borough Council, 26 January 2006
(BEXYLB-32005A-020 and -021). Back
26
Committee Ref: A88, Schematic of Existing Track Layout in Slade
Green to Dartford Area (BEXYLB-32005A-023). Back
27
Committee Ref: A88, Train Movements Through Dartford Junction
(BEXYLB-32005A-024). Back
28
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Solution to unreliability (3) CLRL letter
to Bexley Borough Council, 26 January 2006 (BEXYLB-32005A-027). Back
29
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Solution to unreliability (4) Crossrail
Information Paper A5 para 3.6 (BEXYLB-32005A-028). Back
30
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Solution to unreliability (5) Crossrail
Information Paper C5- Additional Safeguarding para 2.3 (BEXYLB-32005A-029). Back
31
Committee Ref: A88, Revised safeguarding-Slade Green to Dartford
(BEXYLB-32005A-030). Back
32
Committee Ref: A88, Schematic of proposed track layout in Slade
Green to Dartford area with Ebbsfleet extension (BEXYLB-32005A-031). Back
33
Committee Ref: A88, The Business Case for Ebbsfleet Option (1)
Extract from para 267, Montague Report July 2004 (BEXYLB-32005A-032). Back
| 
