Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8540
- 8559)
8540. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think it would
be convenient in that case for us now to adjourn the Committee
until 2.30 this afternoon.
8541. Mr Elvin: Sir, we shall easily
finish during the course of the afternoon and we might have some
time to kill before the six o'clock session.
After a short adjournment
8542. Mr Elvin: I will call Mr Berryman,
sir. The Committee are well familiar with Mr Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
8543. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, can you
describe briefly to the Committee the reason why, notwithstanding
the option consideration in Montague, it was decided in 2004,
after Montague, not to proceed for the time being with the Abbey
Wood to Ebbsfleet element to the south-eastern part of Crossrail?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, during the same time as
the Montague Report was being prepared—and, of course, you
will appreciate that was an independent inquiry chaired by Sir
Adrian Montague, it was going on in parallel to our own work—we
were also doing timetable modelling for the timetable we developed
up to that point, and it became very clear during the course of
that modelling that the scheme we were proposing at that time,
which was to send four trains on beyond Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet,
was going to lead to problems not only for the Crossrail service
(that was my principal concern, of course) but, also, for the
other services which operate down in that area of North Kent.
During the Montague Review Sir Adrian's team also investigated
this issue quite independently of us and suggested that going
down to Ebbsfleet would seriously compromise the ability of Crossrail
to run services that require frequency in the central area, and
that was really—a combination of those two things—the
reason why it was dropped from the scheme at that time.
8544. How important was it to provide a reliable
and frequent service?
(Mr Berryman) It is very important to provide
a reliable and frequent service. So what we concentrated on was
improving the interchange between Crossrail trains and North Kent
line trains at Abbey Wood so the journey would be, as far as practicable,
seamless. I think we have already heard in evidence—and
I think Mr Hardie agreed—that the five-minute frequency
of Crossrail trains would mean that the average waiting time would
be about two-and-a-half minutes for one of those trains going
into London. Coming out of London, generally, through most of
the day, there is a 15-minute service out from Abbey Wood to North
Kent. There are parts of the day, particularly in the contra-peak,
where that is not the case but most of the day it is a 15-minute
service. Really, whether you are on a 15-minute service which
you have to wait for at Abbey Wood, or a 15-minute service you
have to wait for at Tottenham Court Road, it does not make much
difference; you have still got a service every 15 minutes. From
the operator's point of view, it is far better to have people
waiting at Abbey Wood rather than having them wait at a deep-level,
underground tube station.
8545. Mr Berryman, in the light of the undertaking
we have given with regard to passive provision for the dual electrification,
I am not going to ask any questions about that. Can I ask you,
briefly, about the costs issue? Certain costs have been put forward
today. What is your general view?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think the information
was put forward on costs by Bexley based on our published information.
We do not generally argue with that very much, but there is a
bit of a mix-up between what was MPV costs (that is to say, discounted
back to the present day) and what was costs assessed on fixed
cost bases. Just to briefly run through the numbers, the costs
for the original scheme—that is the scheme we established
that does not work very well—to go out to Ebbsfleet would
be about £83 million base costs. When we have added the contingency,
which the Treasury requires us to add for this kind of project,
that comes up to £120 million. That is at first quarter 2002
prices. The costs of the additional works from Crayford Creek
to Dartford, which were alluded to this morning, as was said by
Mr Hardie, is £95 million plus the Treasury's what they call
"optimism bias", which brings it up to £136 million.
The optimism bias is the sum that they add to counter the natural
exuberance of people like ourselves who are promoting schemes,
because they feel they tend to understate the costs. That, in
total, brings the cost of a workable scheme that goes down to
Ebbsfleet to around £256 million, at first quarter 2002 prices.
That is quite a lot of money to pay for the service improvements
that are required. It also has impacts on the project itself.
8546. That cost is not a cost which was assessed
by Montague. As we have heard from the Bexley witnesses, at the
time Montague assessed the option the four-line solution to the
bottleneck was not an issue which had been considered.
(Mr Berryman) It certainly was not considered
by Montague. I think it was probably at the very early stages
of being considered by us but it was definitely not considered
by Montague.
8547. If, as has been the case, the decision
was made to drop to Ebbsfleet, why is it still proposed—although
it is still only in draft—to safeguard the route to Ebbsfleet?
(Mr Berryman) Clearly, there are advantages
to the Thames Gateway of having a through railway which goes down
to service that Thames Gateway corridor. Probably the advantages
are more psychological than real because the loss of journey time
through having to make the interchange at Abbey Wood is actually
relatively low. I think there is a psychological issue that you
can get on to what will effectively be the London Transport underground-type
map, and that has a positive impact on places, but I think it
is, as I say, more in the perception than the reality. Having
said that, North Kent line services are not the world's best and,
irrespective of Crossrail, it is desirable to improve the layout
of North Kent, and the safeguarding proposed would allow that
to be done.
8548. Then, just to move to an issue raised
by Bexley, which is the "all options consideration"—which
is that whichever of their options, if any, is acceptable to the
Committee, Crossrail should form part of the first phase of the
construction of Crossrail and be brought into operation on the
day that Crossrail first comes into operation—whatever "including
it in the first phase" means, what Bexley is seeking is that
on day one of Crossrail the south-east link should be there. What
are your views about that suggestion?
(Mr Berryman) The first thing to say is that
Crossrail is a very, very large project—very large indeed—and
it is unlikely that we would bring it all into commission at one
go; it would be a period of bringing sections into commission.
Wherever the first section is, it needs to have access to a depot,
because you need a depot for the commissioning of rolling stock
and you need a depot for doing the servicing as you start to build
up operating lines. The existing depot at Slade Green is not suitable
as a depot for Crossrail, as it is already full, and therefore
it is unlikely that the south-eastern branch could be brought
into commission first. When I talk about bringing things into
commission in stages, that does not necessarily mean a very long
gap between stages; it could mean a few months, it could mean
a longer period, and that will probably depend on the availability
of funding at the time the line is being built.
8549. Is it possible at this stage, Mr Berryman,
to say which, in strategic and construction terms, phase of Crossrail
will be brought in first?
(Mr Berryman) It is very likely, as things
stand at the moment—in fact, almost certain—to be
the north-east branch which is brought in first. There are two
reasons for this: first of all, that is where the depot site is
proposed to be, and secondly the north-east branch is already
electrified with a 25kv overhead system. It allows us to introduce
the rolling stock gradually on that line before it is introduced
into the tunnels, so we get running mileage before we start moving
to a Crossrail service and we know the rolling stock is reliable.
8550. The position that Bexley should be favoured
above the other branches of Crossrail and brought in on day one—is
that a view you subscribe to?
(Mr Berryman) I feel I should say "they
would say that, wouldn't they". Not really, no. I think that
the bigger benefits actually come from the central section of
the north-east branch; they are the things which give you the
biggest hit straight away. Clearly, the south-east branch is quite
strong, but I do not think it is not sufficiently strong to say
it should have priority over other branches.
8551. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, unless there
is anything I have missed out in outlining the position to the
Committee, I have no further questions.
Cross-examined by Mr Cameron
8552. Mr Cameron: Mr Berryman, can I
first of all check with you publicly, so to speak, that you are
the only witness who is going to be giving evidence on behalf
of the Promoter today?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly, unless you ask me
some questions I cannot answer, in which case it may be necessary
for someone else to assist, but, yes, that is the intention.
8553. The reason I ask that is that if I want
to ask questions about the difference in the extent of the regeneration
benefit—by the "difference" I mean what you get
if you go to Abbey Wood and what you would get if you go to Ebbsfleet—are
you the right person to answer those questions?
(Mr Berryman) Probably not, sir. It depends
on the depth you want to go into.
8554. Can I start with those questions and then
if you need to pass on to somebody else you can say so. Can we
do that?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, by all means.
8555. There is a letter written by your colleague,
Mr Anderson, (it is our document A91) of 11 May.[93]
What Mr Anderson says, under: "Regeneration benefits arising
from current Crossrail scheme" is this: "Analysis of
the regeneration benefits accruing to areas in the Thames Gateway
beyond Abbey Wood, based on the current Bill scheme, has been
undertaken." It focused on accessibility changes and consequent
changes in population and employment catchments resulting from
Crossrail, and the transport model CAPITAL was used. The same
model was used, am I right in thinking, at the time that the 2003
business case was developed?
(Mr Berryman) It was certainly
used for some analysis in that case, yes.
8556. And that analysis included analysis of
the same indicators, namely population and employment increases,
at 30 minutes or 45 minutes with the extension to Ebbsfleet. Were
you aware of that?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I was.
8557. I wonder whether you could just be given,
for the moment, a copy of the working paper which is referred
to by Mr Donovan in his evidence: working paper 6.2. This is a
Crossrail paper, so it is your own paper, I think. If you would
go to page 18, you have figures for population and employment
within time-travel distances of 30 minutes and 45 minutes with
Crossrail and that is with the extension to Ebbsfleet.[94]
(Mr Berryman) That is correct,
and this would be done using the CAPITAL model.
8558. These figures can provide one with a direct
comparison with the figures produced by Mr Anderson in his letter
dated 11 May 2006.
(Mr Berryman) I think you would have to ask
Mr Anderson that question. I am not quite sure whether it is on
the same basis.
8559. As far as Bexley and the Committee are
concerned, we have one paper from Crossrail which has figures
for population and employment from particular locations. I am
going to take as an example Belvedere. You can have Belvedere
with and without the extension to Ebbsfleet, and make a direct
comparison by having Mr Anderson's A91 and the working paper,
A93, one in each hand.
(Mr Berryman) I do not have Mr Anderson's A91,
I am afraid.[95]
93 Committee Ref: A91, CLRL to London Borough of LB
Bexley, 11 May 2006 (SCN20060516-002). Back
94
Committee Ref: A93, Population and Employment Figures within
time-travel distances with Crossrail with the extension to Ebbsfleet
, Transport Model CAPITAL (SCN20060516-004). Back
95
Committee Ref: A91, CLRL to London Borough of LB Bexley, 11 May
2006 (SCN20060516-001). Back
|
